Christopher Paige, et ux. v. Lerner Master Fund, LLC, et al.

When the lower courts deny important substantive and procedural rights to protected minorities, may they simply refuse to explain their rationale(s) for those denials, thereby forcing both those litigants and the general public to question whether or not there's actually a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for the lower courts' decisions? In other words, does the need to avoid even the "appearance of impropriety" require the lower courts to do more than to simply assert their good-faith in response to specific, credible allegations of judicial discrimination? In an adversary proceeding pursuant to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, does an innocent defendant have any substantive legal rights other than the right to prevail at some indefinite point in the future? In lay terms, is justice delayed justice denied? May the lower courts deny innocent bankrupts their right to a speedy resolution of all adversary proceedings against them, or are the lower courts free to ignore the Congressional mandate requiring a speedy resolution of such disputes? Even if the lower courts may ignore allegations of judicial discrimination, when—consistent with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—may the lower courts sanction litigants for challenging judicial discrimination? Even if the lower courts may sanction litigants for challenging judicial discrimination, may the lower courts sanction litigants for challenging judicial discrimination without providing any notice or opportunity to be heard? What message are the lower courts