As of 1100 Tuesday, we have heard that cert was NOT denied in Snope nor in Ocean State Tactical.
This means that when the dockets are updated later today, we are likely to see them Distributed for Conference of 1/24/2025.
This is as expected. NEXT Monday is when I become concerned, if the cases are relisted.
I was raised in a strict Christian, Republican household where my parents always voted Republican, and they passed their views down to us kids. My father passed away about 15 years ago, and my mom remarried—a Democrat. While I’ve mostly leaned conservative, with some occasional moves toward the center, my mom has changed a lot since my dad died. She now lives in a suburb of Chicago and regularly listens to news outlets that lean left.
I didn’t tell her who I voted for in the 2024 election because I didn’t want to start a political debate. However, I did ask her, “Do you think Dad would have voted for Trump?” She replied, “Of course NOT!” I knew deep inside that he would have.
Yesterday, I called her to check in, and naturally, the conversation turned to politics.
“Can you believe it? Trump is having his inauguration inside!” my mom exclaimed. “What a wimp! It’s not going to be that cold out!”
I responded, “I don’t see any problem with that. I wouldn’t want to stand out in the cold for hours, either.”
She continued, “Well, can you believe it? He’s also staying inside because he’s afraid of being shot!”
I replied, “I wouldn’t want to be shot either. Honestly, that just makes it even more understandable that he’s having the inauguration inside. I guess I don’t see what the issue is, Mom.”
I then tried to put it into perspective: “Mom, if I were planning to get married outside, I’d have a backup plan in case of bad weather. The same goes for the high school down the street when they have graduation outside—they always have a backup plan. So I don’t understand why you’re so upset about Trump wanting to be warm and safe.”
After my conversation with my mom, I mentioned her comments to my husband and sister. They pointed out that having the inauguration inside would limit the number of people who could attend. My sister added, “If you lived in Seattle, Washington, and were flying in to see the inauguration, it would be really inconvenient if there weren’t enough tickets.”
I can understand that perspective. It makes sense that some people might feel frustrated by the limited access. However, I still find myself wondering why the left is making such a big deal out of something so minor. It feels like they’ll latch onto any small issue to portray Trump as the villain. Honestly, it makes me question—don’t people have better things to focus on? There are so many more important issues at hand.
Happy Inauguration Day! A big relief to those of us on the right.
Meatballs are the ultimate feast food, in my opinion. There are as many ways to make them as there are cooks, and maybe more. This recipe was created based upon a video by Country Life Vlog in Azerbaijan, Turkey. While Aziza (the cook) doesn’t give you amounts or any real instructions, I pieced this together by watching her cooking the meal. It’s incredibly delicious!
Ingredients:
For the broth:
For the meatballs:
For the rest of the recipe:
Make your broth first. Add the broth ingredients into a large pot and bring it to a boil. Reduce the heat and allow it to simmer for at least 3 hours, adding water as necessary to keep it from drying out. If you want to skip this part, you can use 6 cups of beef broth, and add the other ingredients to it, and let it simmer for 30 minutes before moving on.
While the broth is cooking, work on your meatballs. In a large bowl, add all the ingredients except the figs. Mix together by hand, until everything is well distributed. Let this sit, covered, for at least 30 minutes and up to 2 hours.
When the broth is ready, remove all the ingredients and strain it to be sure there’s no hot seedy surprises lurking in the bottom. Return the broth to the pot, and taste it. Add salt and pepper to taste. Bring the broth back to a simmer while you form the meatballs.
For a pound of ground beef, make 3 to 4 meatballs (yes, they are LARGE). Really manhandle the meatballs, slapping them from hand to hand to make them fairly solid. In the center of each meatball, place one fig, and form the ball around it. Set the meatballs aside.
Mix together a tablespoon of turmeric, a cup of water, and a dash of salt, and whisk to combine. Use this turmeric water to “wash” the outside of the meatballs. This adds a bit of flavor, but also smooths the outside of the meatballs to help them hold together better while cooking. As each meatball is done, place it into the simmering broth. Make certain the broth covers the meatballs most of the way. Cover the pot, and allow to simmer.
Peel and slice your potatoes in half now, and slide them into the broth around the meatballs. Add the rinsed chickpeas, a few figs, and the saffron, as well. Be careful not to squish the meatballs, as they aren’t firm yet and could fall apart. If there isn’t enough liquid at this point to cover everything, you can add a bit of beef broth or water, or even a dash of red wine, to bring it up high enough. Using a large spoon, gently nudge the meatballs to make sure all sides are getting evenly cooked, and they aren’t sticking to the bottom of the pot.
Simmer until the meatballs are cooked through and the potatoes are soft and just beginning to crumble a bit. You can check the meatballs with an instant read meat thermometer. They should register at 165°F when they are ready.
Serve up this delicious meal with a side of pickles or beets if you would like to be immersed in Turkish food culture. Alternatively, a slice of bread never goes wrong, either.
Notes:
When I made this soup, I found the broth to be so spicy that I couldn’t eat it. I used a dehydrated poblano pepper, and it was just too much for me. I’m not a big heat person. Family said that it was warm but not hot to them, so your mileage may vary! I served the broth in small bowls on its own, and then put the meatballs, potatoes, and chickpeas on a plate. That way, people could use as much or little of the broth as they wanted. This was a very hearty meal.
The Country Life Vlog video:
We all have a moral code. Some people have a moral code that is more restrictive than yours. Some people have a moral code less restrictive than yours.
Occasionally, a moral code is imposed by outside authorities. Such a moral code is unlikely to be “your” moral code. You might agree with all or some of that enforced moral code.
An example of an outside moral code is “Thou shalt not kill.” The original Hebrew was “Thou shalt not murder.”
If you are reading this, it is highly likely that your moral code allows you to violate the first rule, “Thou shalt not kill.” If you carry, if you are willing to use lethal force, you have already decided to violate that rule.
At the same time, you should still be within the rule of “Thou shalt not murder.”
Humans are not born with a moral code. We are taught a moral code by our parents and our community.
A big problem for many Muslims is that their moral code is incompatible with our moral code. We can look at the rape gangs in the UK and question, “Why would they rape children?”. It is because, to their moral code, they have done no wrong.
There are those among us whose moral code would revolt you. Their moral code isn’t thou shalt not commit murder. It isn’t thou shall not kill. Instead, it is closer to “are you willing to do the time? Is it worth it to you to kill this person?”
We joke about feeding pedo’s into the wood chipper, feet first, with tourniquets in place. The reason we make that joke is because there are many among us that have evaluated the cost and are willing to do the time.
To quote Chicago, “It was murder, but it wasn’t a crime.”
In a series I was watching, the cops show up at a dirt poor family’s home. It is obvious that they have been eating meat from animals harvested from the forest. The cops know, they cops aren’t going to do anything about it. Who’s moral code is correct?
Harvey Silverglate wrote Three Felonies A Day, How the Feds Target the Innocent. The book boils down to the fact that in the course of going about your day, most people will commit 3 or more felonies.
There is an imaginary line a few miles south of me. If I am standing, with my normal gear, on the north side of that imaginary line, no issues. If I step across that line, I’m committing felonies.
One of the things that is often said, which I have not verified, is that everything Hitler did to the Jews was legal, under German law, at the time.
In some cultures, it is legal to beat your wife. It is legal to beat your children. It is legal to do many things that are illegal here.
In the UK, it is illegal to say bad things about protected classes of people. In the US, there are people who want it to be illegal to say things that hurt their feelings.
What is legal and what is not legal is determined by the rules written in “The Book.” In the US, at the federal level, we need to have both houses agree to a bill and then have the president sign the bill into law.
In addition, the congress can pass a bill and have it signed into law telling some agency to create “regulations” with the force of law.
To understand if something is Constitutional, we have to look at the regulation and determine if the regulation implicates the plain text of the Constitution. If it does, then we have to look to this Nation’s history of regulations on this type of regulation.
For most of the Constitution, we have historical jurisprudence telling us what each word and phrase means. This is so the inferior courts and the legislator can “get it right”. They don’t, but the Supreme Court does try.
The meaning of the words of the Constitution are locked in time. They mean today what they meant when the language was added to the Constitution.
For instance, the term “well regulated”, from the Second Amendment, does NOT mean “many regulations” or even “with regulations setting forth the boundaries of the right”. In 1791, “well regulated” means functioning well.
The phrase we are interested in, today, is Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech
The full quote is above, I’ve expanded the clause to focus on the concept of “Free Speech”.
From the plain text, it is obvious that it is a limit on Congress’s authority to create regulations abridging speech. Any law that Congress passes that restricts speech implicates the plain text of the First Amendment.
Once we have determined that there is a Constitutional issue, we need to look at this Nation’s history of abridging free speech, at the time of the founding! 1791!
If you have a “hate speech” law that came into existence in 1950, that is not part of this Nation’s history of abridging free speech. The latest the law can exist and still be part of the original understanding of the law is around 1820.
Because this issue has been asked and answered by the Supreme Court, we don’t need to look for those laws. What the Supreme Court found was that there is a history in this Nation of abridging free speech.
What are those abridgments?
They fall into categories based on how much abridgment there is into the “core” right.
As an example, there are regulations limiting the use of the US Postal Service to distribute pornographic materials.
Does this intrude into “freedom of speech?” YES! It does.
How close to the core right does it cut? It is not political speech, for the most part, nor is it “educational” speech on the other. It does not seem to intrude into the core right.
On the other hand, if the State had anything to do with censoring conservative speech on Twitter, Facebook or any social network, that does cut directly into the core rights protected by the First Amendment.
Once the category is determined, the next step is to decide the “level of scrutiny” to apply.
If the abridgment cuts to the core protected right, then strict scrutiny is applied. Less than but still significant, then intermediate scrutiny applies.
There is another below that which I do not remember.
Using levels of scrutiny is giving our rights away. We should never agree to “levels of scrutiny” as it allows the State and rogue inferior courts to decide on the outcome by choosing levels.
In Bruen, the Supreme Court found that the inferior courts were intentionally misusing levels of scrutiny. As such, they said that levels of scrutiny were no longer allowed for Second Amendment challenges.
Once a court has determined that it applies, strict scrutiny starts from a presumption of unconstitutionality, shifting the burden of persuasion to the government, which must then produce evidence sufficient to show that its actions were constitutional. To that end, the government must show that its actions were “narrowly tailored” to further a “compelling government interest,” and that they were the “least restrictive means” to further that interest.
I highlight the phrase “shifting the burden” because that is an exact match to what was said in Bruen.
In Constitutional Challenges, once the plain text is implicated and strict scrutiny is invoked, the government must prove three distinctly different things:
The government is not supposed to be able to just say they have a compelling reason, they need to prove it. Stopping murder? That is compelling. Stopping espionage is compelling. Stopping people from voicing their opinion is not compelling.
Having identified the compelling interest, the government must then show that they are using the least restrictive method to achieve the goal.
Increasing the penalty for murder? That is not restrictive. Banning all cell/mobile phones in businesses? That is not least restrictive. Banning people that might say something offensive is not least restrictive. Forcing a company to divest itself of foreign advisory control? That sounds like it might not be very restrictive.
Finally, was the law narrowly tailored to accomplish the goals?
Something can be moral and illegal. Something can be legal and immoral. Being Constitutional makes it “legal” but does not make it moral. Remember that it was once legal and Constitutional to own slaves in this country. It was never moral. We fought a war and amended our Constitution to make slavery Unconstitutional and illegal. It stayed immoral.
There are two network time protocols in use today. One is the NTP protocol, the other is PTP. I have no idea what the PTP looks like, I know that it requires hardware support.
The goal of NTP is to create a local clock that is accurate to less than 1ms from sources that have up to a hundred times that in latency.
The fact that this works at all simply amazes me.
I have 7 servers acting as an NTP cluster. That is to say, they all work to come to a consensus as to what time it is, and then each syncs to that time point.
They do this via actively querying each other every 64 seconds. The protocol knows that the referenced clock time is somewhere within the total time from query to response. Using complex statistics, it can get it much closer than just “somewhere” or “middle”.
As I am writing this, one server believes it knows the time to the network with a standard deviation of less than 500us. It has one nailed down to less than 83us.
Within the local cluster, it believes it knows the time within 50us for all the cluster members. For a few of the cluster members, they agree on the time within 3000ns (3us). That’s not bad.
So what are the problems.
The first problem is that I have a clock that claims to be very accurate, but which I know is slightly wrong.
The clock is fast by 957us with an SD of 57us. I believe it to be worse than that. The issue being that the clock is influencing the rest of the time cluster.
I did that because I had a usable fudge factor for the clock. Now I need to bring it much closer to “real time”.
To that end, I’ve reconfigured the server with the GPS clock to never use the GPS time. Instead, it will use the network servers to converge on “the time”. Once I know “the time” I will be able to adjust the GPS offset better.
The second issue is that USB injects jitter into the signal. We don’t know when the USB port received the time message from the GPS unit. Hopefully, we have a good estimate, but it is still very jittery.
It is nearly impossible to get down to 1ns or less with a clock that has a 500us jitter.
What does this mean? I need to stabilize the time signal. We do that with a PPS. This pulse tells us that the second happened on the rise or fall of the pulse. This is configurable. The second starts on the rising edge of the pulse. With a PPS input, we can reduce jitter to a few nanoseconds.
The issue still is, “What is the offset detecting the leading edge from the “real” start of the second?”
This value comes from the delay along the antenna cable and other such speed of light delays.
Which takes us to the conclusion of this article.
The GPS units I purchased came with a small ceramic antenna. The antenna is about 10 mm on a side. It has a 10 cm connector. This means the unit and the antenna are very close to each other. The antenna isn’t a great antenna.
With this taped to the inside of the window, I was picking up 3 satellites. I replaced it with a cheap, yet “real” antenna. I’m not locking on to 10 or more satellites. More locks mean better time keeping.
If you are doing this yourself, do yourself a favor and order a real antenna to go with your project.
In addition to being “real”, the cable is 3m long, giving me options on where to place it. And it is a water proof unit.
First, Mark Smith is a lawyer. I am not. Much of the “inside baseball” I’ve learned from listening to Mark and others like him on YouTube.
His analysis of many cases is spot on. Many times his analysis guides mine. I enjoy listening to him. To put it differently, I enjoy him attempting to “make [me] the smartest person in the room.”
One of his early videos was describing how the Roberts court handles grants of cert.
As he explains it, once a case gets to the point where it will be considered for cert, it will be distributed for conference. This means that it will be discussed by the Justices at a particular conference. Those conferences normally happen on Friday.
The court will then issue their “Orders” on the following Monday. Well, that is the day it is normally published.
The orders list consists of mostly of one or two lines, case such and such petition for something is denied. There are long lists of denied, a shorter list of granted.
In addition to the short statements from the Court as a whole, there will sometimes be statements by the Justices regarding denial of cert in a case. These can be considered dissenting opinions.
If a case has been conferenced, there are three options for the case going forward. The case can be denied cert. The case can be granted cert. The case can be relisted.
If a case is relisted. Which means to be distributed for conference the next week. That will not be in the orders. It will show up in the case docket later in the day.
If a case is not listed in the orders, after it has been conferenced, it can mean one of two things (IANAL), it can mean that the case is relisted, and we’ll read it in the docket later in the day, OR it means that cert was granted but one or more Justices needs time to write a statement.
As I said, the orders are normally given on the Monday following the conference.
Occasionally, there will be a misc. orders issued on the Friday of the conference. These are grants of cert.
The Supreme Court has a term that runs from the first of October to the end of June the next year.
In general, the Court will issue opinions in the same term as they hear oral arguments on the case.
Oral arguments must take place before the close of the term, while leaving the Justices enough time to write their opinion. Consider that the Heller opinion was nearly 157 pages in length, 60 lines per page, 10 words per line.
That makes the Heller opinion around 90,000 words in length. It was written by multiple justices, but still, that is two Novels.
It is 90 long Chris articles. Ally, our writer, will write 3700 words a day when creating the first draft. She will spend a month writing a 50,000 plus word book. Then she starts editing.
This means that if they expect it to be a long opinion, they need to have 45 or more days to write it. That 45 is an S.W.A.G by me.
This puts a fairly hard deadline for oral arguments.
From the time a case is granted certiorari, the clock is running. The petitioners have 45 days to file their brief. The respondents have 30 days to file their brief. The Petitioners have 15 days to file their reply. A total of 90 days.
To give the justices 45 days to ponder and write, oral arguments must happen on or before May 16, 2025.
Putting a more concrete number on this, it took 118 days from oral arguments in McDonald to the date the Court issued their opinion.
This implies my guess of 45 days might be a bit short. Bruen was heard in November and the opinion was issued on June 23rd.
Regardless, if we are going to have an opinion this term, we are running out of time. To hit the May 16th deadline, the Court must grant cert before February 15th.
120 days was this last Thursday, January 16th.
Mark explained to us that we wanted three cases conferenced on the 10th of January. This happened. Good for Mark.
He explained that we would like to see cert granted January 13th, but we should expect the cases to be relisted.
He posted a video on the 10th or 11th telling us that a miscellaneous order had granted cert in three cases on the 10th. This was bad news for the Second Amendment. These cases were being given a jump start on getting things done before it was too late for this term.
On Monday afternoon, two cases were relisted. The case that was in an interlocutory state was denied cert. There was another Second Amendment case that dealing with taxes on firearms that was also denied cert.
This was precisely what Mark had predicted.
On the 17th, our two Second Amendment cases were conferenced for the second time. In the evening, a miscellaneous order granting cert in four cases was issued.
Mark posted another video telling us this was bad news for our Second Amendment cases.
I’m sticking with Mark V1. So far, the situation is progressing as he predicted. This matches my predictions (IANAL).
I refuse to panic or even worry over the weekend. Monday morning, I will read the orders. I expect to see nothing regarding Snope and Ocean State Tactical. Later in the evening, I will check the docket for those two cases, and I expect to find them relisted.
This is on track. We are doing well.
January 27th is the day we need to be paying attention to. That will be the day orders are issued for the conference held on the 24th. If the cases are relisted for a fourth time, I’ll be nervous.
Just remember, it isn’t over until the fat lady sings.
Mask mandates probably weren’t the best thing out there, but I’ve seen enough evidence to know that masks do help stop the transmission of many illnesses. Vaccine mandates probably aren’t the best thing out there, but a lot of long-standing vaccines are the reason we don’t have people in iron lungs anymore. Disease and illness is a problem that human beings will always have to deal with. Our methods for dealing with them change as we develop better ways of fighting disease, but the fight will always be there.
As a prepper, disease is something we need to be concerned about. There are likely going to be more pandemics in the future (because there have been many in the past, and it’s the type of pattern that doesn’t change much). It’s in our best interest to learn how to deal with the most likely diseases to bother us, should a SHTF scenario happen. So which diseases should we prepare for?
Diarrheal diseases are the first things we’re likely to see. These happen for a variety of reasons, sometimes with very little change. The food you are eating may change if a large scale emergency happens, and that can cause changes in bowel movements (in either direction, I might add, and both are bad). The “big” diarrheal diseases are cholera, typhoid, gastroenteritis, and dysentery. Changes in food and sanitation will make these four diseases something to be feared. You combat them by making sure you’ve addressed good hygiene in your emergency preparations. Be sure to have clean water to wash your hands in, if nothing else. Keep bleach in your preps so that you can sanitize things. Be prepared to use boiling water to sanitize some things. Good sanitation will take care of a lot of the things in this category, but not all. Consider keeping hydration mixes on hand in case of gastro or other diseases causing dehydration.
Nutritional diseases will eventually show up. Lack of vitamin C can cause scurvy. Vitamin D deficiency can bring on rickets and osteomalacia. Low iron and zinc can bring on all sorts of issues. Eating too much protein, or not enough protein, can cause mental confusion. Severe weight loss due to lack of food or lack of GOOD food can cause problems, too. We tend to think of losing weight as a positive thing for SHTF, but it isn’t. Rapid weight loss of that kind can bring on a bevy of health problems that we’ll be in no shape to deal with. (more…)
Ally came to me the other day upset about the TikTok case. One of her issues was that the AP was reporting that they couldn’t report more because it was “sealed”.
I found this to be unusual and went to the source to find out what is going on. What I found was somewhat different.
Ally pointed out that what I sent her, the docket, wasn’t something she understood.
This is a non lawyer’s take on reading dockets.
The docket is a record of a case. It contains the identifying information about the case as well as providing information on what court, panel, or judges will be hearing the case. It is relatively brief.
The biggest part is the “Proceedings and Orders”.
The header identifies the case. In addition, it helps track the case back in history as it moved through different courts.
The title is the parties to the suit. The short title would be TikTok v. Garland. The date the case was docketed with the Supreme Court was December 18, 2024. The case comes from the D.C. Circuit Court. In the circuit court it had a case number of 24-1113.
The first entry tells an interesting story. The first is that this case was submitted to the emergency docket, sometimes called the shadow docket.
When a case is placed on the emergency docket, it is assigned to one justice. Each justice is assigned a set of lower courts that they “supervise.” In this case, the D.C. Circuit Court is supervised by Chief Justice John Roberts.
The party petitioners are TikTok and ByteDance. They have “filed a motion” which is legal speak for “asked for something.” What they have asked for is an injunction against the enforcement of <q>Pub. L. No. 118-50, div. H (2024)</q>. This is the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications.”
In other words, they want the courts to stop the banning of TikTok.
To pull the information about motion, I read the “Main Document”. On the website, this is a link to the PDF of the document.
Because this case was put on the Emergency Docket, they are not asking the court to decide on the merits of the case, instead they are asking for an injunction until the Supreme Court has made their final decision regarding the ban.
Entry two says that they have also requested that the court hear the case, on its merits.
The next three entries are briefs by different groups of people called “Friends of the Court”, or “amicus curiae”. These are not parties of the case but instead are people who want to stick their two-cents in.
These briefs must be filed by a lawyer who is a member of the Supreme Court bar. In some situations, the people filing amicus briefs must get permission first.
Simply put, it is a written argument. The person or group that files the brief feels that they have something important to say that might change the Court’s mind.
These briefs are all going to be arguing that the Supreme Court do something.
The respondents will often not argue at this point. To argue that the Court not hear the case is to make the case more important. Since the Court prefers to take cases that are important in the broad scheme of things, arguing that the Court not hear a case is arguing for the case to be heard.
On December 18th, the application, as 24A587 on the emergency docket, was referred to the Court.
This is the Court’s normal Wednesday conference.
The Justice discuss the cases which have been referred to them and decide as a group what they are going to do.
There is a deadline of January 19th for them to issue an order or opinion.
The petition is granted on the 18th. This means that the case went from not existing within the Supreme Court’s system to being granted cert in 2 days.
This is what “Emergency Docket” means. It has to happen now.
Now this particular case is on an expedited track. The Justices have given a word limit on the briefs. We will see later that there are “Certificate of Word Count” attached to many filings, stating they are within the limits set by the Court.
The time is also shortened. All the primary briefs are to be filed by December 27th. This is only 9 days after the granting of cert.
The court also says when oral arguments are happening.
The court also consolidated two cases. This is why we went from 24A587 to 24-656. The two original dockets were 24A587 and 24A656.
While the court said that oral arguments were on the 10th of January in their order. The official order is “SET FOR ARGUMENT at 10 a.m., Friday, January 10, 2025.”
We start to see the Amicus briefs start to arrive. They have until 1700 the 27th to get their briefs in.
We can tell that the people interested in this case have already prepared their briefs and are submitting them within a few days.
Our first entry is an order from the clerk of the court. They are telling the filer that they didn’t do it right. The submitted their brief with a word count, but the proof of service was incomplete.
The clerk will not accept the brief until the deficiencies are resolved.
Outside the amici briefs, we have a “request”, which is Supreme Court speak for “order”, to the circuit court for a complete record. There is an “appendix” which is the compendium of all the briefs filed in the lower court(s?).
While the cases are combined, both petitioners request to argue separately. It will happen on the same day, one after another.
When reading these entries, the notation “(Distributed)” means that the filing has been given to the justices.
Many briefs are filed. The justices met and on the 31st granted the petitioners motion to argue separately.
All the replies were submitted on time.
One of the amici managed to mess things up so badly that they didn’t get their homework in on time. They asked the Court for an exception, the Court said, “no”.
This is the record of the cases before the D.C. Circuit Court. The records came in to parts. One part is open to the public, they other is sealed.
Sealed information can include things like financial details, personal identifying information (think SSN), or the identity of undercover or human sources. It can also include methods that the state doesn’t want public.
The Supreme Court can decide to unseal those records, but it isn’t going to happen. There is no need.
The quick way to find out what happened on the 10th is to read the transcript.
If you want to spend 2 hours listening, you can listen to the oral arguments
On the 17th, the Court has its next conference. They will discuss the cases referred to them, the cases distributed to them seeking cert, and cases where oral arguments have been heard.
They will come to a conclusion.
Once they decide, they need to write the opinion. If any justices are dissenting, they have to write their dissent.
Justices can write concurrences as well. This is when the justice agree with the opinion, but not the reasoning of the majority opinion.
Once all the opinions are finished, the opinion of the court will be released.
If the justices know that it will take longer to write the opinions than they have, they can issue an injunction. The injunction will put everything on pause until the Court can issue their opinion.
The path from here is working backwards. Given the circuit court and the docket number for that court, you can look up the docket on the Circuit Court’s website.
Of course, this doesn’t always work. To answer this, we use Court Listener to look up the case at the circuit court. The link I’ve given takes you to this case.
Within the circuit court docket, we find the same type of docket. Part of what we will find is a reference to the district court case.
All the oral arguments at the circuit level are available on the web. It can be difficult to find. Court Listener is your friend there as well.
Go have some fun reading documents.