As is customary, the court gave no reason for its decision

I read in the Times today: Separately, in an unsigned order issued Monday, the [Supreme] court declined to hear an appeal from Charles D. Hood, a death row inmate in Texas who had sought a new trial given evidence that the judge in his case had had an affair with the prosecutor. As is customary, the court gave no reasons for its decision.


You hope that the court read over the case and determined that the weight of the evidence presented in the case pointed, beyond any reasonable doubt, to Charles D. Hood as the perpetrator of the crime.


Still, why not say that? Maybe it is customary for the Supreme Court not to give a reason to deny an appeal, but who is served with that? Certainly not Charles D. Hood, but also not the people. It is time to hold the Supreme Court to the same standards the other branches of government are being held to.