The average age of his appellate judges was 47 (five years younger than those selected by Barack Obama). Six of those were in their 30s, and 20 were under 45. By contrast, of the 55 appellate judges picked by Obama – in eight years, not four – none were in their 30s and only six were younger than 45.

Translation:

The Federal Judicial Center has found that this age disparity means that Trump judges will serve 270 more years than Obama’s judges, and they will decide thousands more cases.

Scheindlen notes that not one of Trump's appointees was Black. Scheindlen then moves on to her biggest criticism: She writes that Trump's appointees have created a "shadow bench".

A new term has been coined – the shadow docket – which refers to the sudden uptick in emergency requests filed by the government. In the 16 years preceding the Trump presidency only eight such requests were filed, and, of those, only four were granted. By contrast, during Trump’s four-year term, 41 such applications were made, of which 24 were granted – a 70% success rate that supported Trump’s policies. These cases are heard without full briefing, without oral argument, and often result in a single-sentence order as opposed to a full reasoned opinion.

Scheindlein gives 5 examples of instances where Trump's legal minions used this tactic, often successfully:

• In Wisconsin, reverse a trial court order which granted more time to receive absentee ballots.
  allowing an extension for the receipt of absentee ballots. "The last-minute supreme court decision issued the day before the election caused chaos and confusion."
• To overturn four decisions refusing to carry out executions due to the use of the drug Penobarbital. In one case, the execution was able to proceed, and the now-deceased inmate became the first person to be executed at the federal level in 17 years.
• To enforce "his administration’s rule prohibiting migrants from seeking asylum in the US before seeking it in the countries through which they had travelled." When a lower court found it unconstitutional, Trump went to the Supreme Court which allowed the rule to go into effect immediately, even though challenges were still pending in other courts.
• Most recently, the Texas Abortion Law.

....in yet another emergency appeal, the supreme court by a 5-4 margin, refused to block the newly enacted Texas law banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, allowing that rule to be enforced for the foreseeable future. This emergency request was brought by abortion providers after the very conservative fifth circuit court of appeals, to which Trump had appointed six judges, stopped the trial court from holding a hearing as to whether the new law could take immediate effect. A month later a trial judge blocked the law from taking effect and the fifth circuit promptly reversed. The Department of Justice is now appealing that decision to the supreme court.

Scheindlein writes that"This unprecedented haste, and acquiescence to the importuning of the executive branch, gave the appearance that the supreme court was no longer an independent and co-equal branch of government but rather a partner of the Trump-led executive branch."

She then discusses three proposed plans to reform the federal courts, such as eliminating life tenure and making retirement mandatory at 70 or 75; expanding the number of Justices on the Supreme Court; and restricting the use of emergency appeals which result in the "shadow docket". This would be accomplished by:

....requiring briefing, argument, and a reasoned opinion on all emergency matters; imposing a code of conduct and ethics on supreme court justices similar to that binding lower court judges; requiring a 6-3 super-majority before finding a federal statute unconstitutional; and requiring that Congress consider any presidential nomination within a fixed period of time – perhaps 45 days after nomination.

Of course, as Scheindlein notes, this is not the only thing Trump left his mark on. He is the first person to have his own desk in the Oval Office who was:

...twice impeached, to have supported, or even incited, an insurrection against democracy, and [who allowed] thousands to die due to his abject failure to lead the nation in fighting the Covid-19 pandemic.

Judge Scheindlein offers good proposals for judicial reform to remove the stink Trump created, but I wonder if it's not putting the cart before the horse. Trump is trying to build a yellow brick road for himself and his children that leads right back to the White House and the halls of Congress. If he is successful, it will be Democrats who are in the minority and who are reined in by the new rules restricting emergency appeals and it will be progressive judges, already in short supply, who are forced off the bench at 70 or 75. On the other hand, I agree with Scheindlein that:

Trump’s brazen capture of the supreme court, engineered with the help of the Republican Senate majority, requires a bold response. If reform efforts fail, which is likely given the arcane Senate rules, Trump will have succeeded in entrenching his regressive, if not destructive, political agenda.

Is there a way to do both? Reform our courts now and mobilize to prevent Trump and his children from returning to positions of power? I think we need to do both, although the latter effort will result in giving him the publicity he craves. He doesn't care if his coverage is favorable or negative. He just wants to be in the news, on a network besides the one he's building.

Question: In a world in which COVID-19 will go from pandemic to endemic, meaning we will all have to live with it since it won't be erased, will anyone have the energy or will to battle the attempted return of Trump?