Liberal law professor claims that Roberts is ‘out of control’ of the Supreme court due to it’s conservative rulings

Democrats struggling with the conservative makeup of the United States Supreme Court are pushing back against Chief Justice John Roberts’ inability to make a conservative majority vote liberal.

University of Texas Law School professor Stephen Vladeck penned an Op-Ed that was published in The New York Times about how “Roberts Has Lost Control of the Supreme Court.”

Democrats likely hoped that they could keep any of the three justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, however that didn’t turn out to be the case.

Vladeck cited in his editorial a 5-to-4 vote by the nation’s high court that put back into place the Trump-era regulation that limited the ability of states to make environmental moves.

According to the University of Texas professor, the “blistering dissenting opinion” by Justice Elena Kagan should be considered as Americans take into account that this is “not the first time that liberal justices have called out most of the court’s conservative justices for their increasingly frequent use of the so-called shadow docket.”

The subject of the “shadow docket” is something that Vladeck considers himself to be a bit of an expert on, considering it’s the topic of his forthcoming book, as announced by his Twitter bio, and evidenced by his explanation of the scary-sounding term:

The term “shadow docket” was introduced by the University of Chicago law professor Will Baude in 2015 to describe the more obscure part of the Supreme Court’s work — the thousands of unsigned and usually unexplained orders that the justices issue each year to manage their docket. Those orders are in contrast to the merits docket, the 60 to 70 cases each year that go through rounds of briefing and oral argument before being resolved in long, signed opinions for the court.

Owing to its inscrutability, the shadow docket has historically received much less public attention or scrutiny. Most shadow docket orders are anodyne — matters as routine as refusing to take up an appeal or giving a party more time to file a brief.

According to the law professor, this docket, among other things, is proof that the Supreme Court is “out of control,” however the evidence brought in the case against the court, seems to be that it is out of Democratic control, and that is the key issue that makes it, supposedly, unacceptable.