The survey is remarkable in even getting responses: US federal judges commenting (anonymously) about the court system and the Supreme Court in particular, which you very rarely see and which seems to violate the judiciary's code of ethics.

Now that SCOTUS has gone so far off the rails, it's no longer possible to maintain a stiff upper lip and claim that everything's fine.

One argument against SCOTUS emergency orders (or the 'Shadow Docket') that I haven't seen is that these decisions are made without an open court session, without hearing any arguments (are there even the arguments that typically accompany preliminary injunctions?, and without an open decision-making process - no vote, no written analysis of the facts and law, etc.

It's just a few people anonymously pronouncing decisions. How is that a legitimate judicial decision at all? Is that authority within their Constitutional powers? 'Court' and 'judicial' have specific meanings - it's not 'whatever a judge does', I would think.

I'd be interested in any lawyers commenting on why people with legal expertise don't make that argument.