I guess the legal community think pissing on the Constitution is fun and fodder for lunchtime laughter.
But if the entire legal community feels that way, why did any of the SCOTUS justice even bring any cases to the conference? Seems they would have been denied that even.
As I understand it, when a petition is denied by an individual justice, who is supposed to be acting for the whole court (trying to anticipate/foresee how their colleagues will vote in regard to hearing a particular case), then the petioner can apply to another justice, AND KEEP DOING SO, until a majority of justices have denied their petition.
It is for this reason, to avoid unnecessary repetition, that the second justice petitioned (which petition is not recommended if the prior denial is with prejudice) ROUTINELY refers it to the whole court (distributes it for conference) so they can dispose of it without further consideration required from a majority of justices on an individual basis.