Supreme Court splits 4-4, again, in state sovereignty

[RetiredUSN]

I think the number of 4-4 decisions you're seeing since the death of Justice Scalia simply goes to prove that your Supreme Court is entirely partisan and activist and doesn't come to its decisions based on the law but based on their individual ideologies, and then they write their opinions based on the results they favour. The only alternative is to believe that your laws are incredibly poorly written. If they were all servants of the law, you would have rulings that are faithful to the law and not to political ideology. Justice Scalia was a great Justice because he was faithful to the law and wherever it took him.

Here in Canada, our Supreme Court makes some rulings that are unpopular and often seem political in nature, but our court strives very hard to come to unanimous or near unanimous decisions on almost all rulings. It's rare that your court does that.

And that, in my view, is why President Obama's choice will not get a hearing and if he does, he won't get voted out of Committee. So get used to this at least until early 2017.

A dissenting judge(s) is often a good thing Canada John. Reasonable people will look at the judges dissensions, and the reasoning behind them.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

How many 4-4 decisions should we allow to happen? Especially ones that could potentially create havoc at the constitutional level?

Based on the track record so far, the only damage being done is to whacko right wing cases.
The Republicans are in control of exactly how many 4-4 decisions they want to allow to happen, it's their circus, their monkeys.

 

[Crovax]

Maybe it should have been clarified "since they invented the automobile and airplane'.

The airplane and automobile wernt around in 1969-70 when they had a 391 day vacancy?

 

[Threegoofs]

There is no "Scalia's Seat". There is only the Constitutional requirement to have a Supreme Court. We can have as many or few judges as the POTUS and Senate agree to.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Youre right. Obama should nominate three justices, and see what happens.

Then, of course, Clinton can renominate and get them through the Democratic Senate next year, since Trump and Cruz are sure losers and will take the Senate down with them.

Bet you'd whine and scream about that plan.

I would too. I think the SC should remain nine, and that the nominee should be approved based upon qualifications, not rabid partisanship that has nothing to do with the candidate themselves. But thats just a reasonable point of view.

 

[CanadaJohn]

A dissenting judge(s) is often a good thing Canada John. Reasonable people will look at the judges dissensions, and the reasoning behind them.

I don't disagree - my only point was that this is now about four 4-4 splits on your Supreme Court in the past couple of months since Justice Scalia's death and that tells me it has nothing to do with interpretations of the law and everything to do with politics. Wouldn't surprise me if the Justices, perhaps on both sides, are protesting the inaction on a replacement for Scalia and that, too, is politics not service to the law.

 

[RetiredUSN]

I don't disagree - my only point was that this is now about four 4-4 splits on your Supreme Court in the past couple of months since Justice Scalia's death and that tells me it has nothing to do with interpretations of the law and everything to do with politics. Wouldn't surprise me if the Justices, perhaps on both sides, are protesting the inaction on a replacement for Scalia and that, too, is politics not service to the law.

We need to read on the decisions before calling it political.....just saying.

 

[Threegoofs]

The airplane and automobile wernt around in 1969-70 when they had a 391 day vacancy?

Well, that one is a special circumstance - it took three nominations to get someone through the Senate after Fortas resigned and Blackmun was confirmed. It wasnt empty for lack of trying.

And lets note... the article in question actually had THIS quote:

The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn within 25 days.

 

[Crovax]

And lets note... the article in question actually had THIS quote:

Yes I know it had that quote, you might remember that from when I posted that quote in post #16

"The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination"

 

[Threegoofs]

Yes I know it had that quote, you might remember that from when I posted that quote in post #16

Rings a bell!

Mea culpa, mea Magna culpa.

 

[Crovax]

We need to read on the decisions before calling it political.....just saying.

If you can easily pick which justices sided of which side of the case before reading it, I dont think a reading of the decision will make a difference

 

[RetiredUSN]

If you can easily pick which justices sided of which side of the case before reading it, I dont think a reading of the decision will make a difference

Really? I have read many dissensions that opened my eyes from both sides. I prefer to overlook the politics before I read about a decision.

 

[Crovax]

Really? I have read many dissensions that opened my eyes from both sides. I prefer to overlook the politics before I read about a decision.

Then you were fooled by pretense a legal argument hiding ideological bias. If we really had some objective legal minds we wouldnt have so many 5-4 or in this case 4-4 decisions.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Then you were fooled by pretense a legal argument hiding ideological bias. If we really had some objective legal minds we wouldnt have so many 5-4 or in this case 4-4 decisions.

Maybe you are fooled by your own predjudice, but when I see a dissension in print, it exposes bias........or not.

 

[prometeus]

It will be interesting to see how many of them are actually offended by the idea of an evenly split court v how many of them really just want another liberal on the bench.

Perhaps what should be considered os how offensive is obstructionism.
For better or worse at this time the court is made up of 9 justices and when a vacancy happens it is the job of the President to nominate and Senate to confirm. Quite simple actually and should not be the subject of political games. No one foresaw the death of Justice Scalia, but reality remain what it is and the vacancy should be filled.

 

[Gaius46]

It's not so much a vacancy as it is an even number of justices - the Constitution doesn't say how many there should or shouldn't be, and we've had different numbers at different points in our past.

But you are right - it could become an issue. Perhaps Ruth Bader Ginsberg should resign, so that the court can make stronger decisions, instead.

RBG is a brilliant woman. I don't agree with her view of the law but the court is better for her being there.

 

[cpwill]

Perhaps what should be considered os how offensive is obstructionism.

Hm. I don't really see where obstructionism is really all that offensive. Indeed, on the face of an offensive administration, it seems the last offensive thing one can do is obstruct it.

For better or worse at this time the court is made up of 9 justices

No, at this time the court is made up of 8 Justices.

and when a vacancy happens it is the job of the President to nominate and Senate to confirm.

Sorta, sorta, and no. If the POTUS wants to put someone on the SCOTUS, then he should nominate someone. If the Senate agrees, then they can have a bit and vote him or her in. If not, then they have no requirement to do anything, so long as the SCOTUS continues to exist.

No one foresaw the death of Justice Scalia, but reality remain what it is and the vacancy should be filled

By the next President.


Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[mike2810]

It is interesting how the SC rules along personal political ideology belief. If members of the SC looked at the Constitution and Laws without bias, we would not have split decisions.

Of course I know that will never happen. Even in the SC , its politics.

 

[prometeus]

Hm. I don't really see where obstructionism is really all that offensive.

That was predictable, well at least in this case.

Indeed, on the face of an offensive administration

IN the eyes of a minority, since Obama WAS elected by a considerable majority. Why is it that you hate "We the people..." so much?

No, at this time the court is made up of 8 Justices.

No, at this time only 8 justices are serving on the court since there is a vacancy.

If the POTUS wants to put someone on the SCOTUS, then he should nominate someone.

You did not get the memo? He did.

If the Senate agrees, then they can have a bit and vote him or her in.

That is true so hearings have to be held.

If not, then they have no requirement to do anything

Except their jobs.

 

[prometeus]

There is no "Scalia's Seat".

But there is now that is vacant and was held by Justice Scalia.

There is only the Constitutional requirement to have a Supreme Court. We can have as many or few judges as the POTUS and Senate agree to.

So when did they agree to 8?

 

[ludin]

It's not so much a vacancy as it is an even number of justices - the Constitution doesn't say how many there should or shouldn't be, and we've had different numbers at different points in our past.

But you are right - it could become an issue. Perhaps Ruth Bader Ginsberg should resign, so that the court can make stronger decisions, instead.

this should have been a 8-0 in favor of NV.
no state has the authority over another state nor should it.

political ideology is ruining the court not how many members are on it.
they should all be disbarred and never allowed to do law again.

I bet the 4 liberals sided against it as usual.

 

[ludin]

It is interesting how the SC rules along personal political ideology belief. If members of the SC looked at the Constitution and Laws without bias, we would not have split decisions.

Of course I know that will never happen. Even in the SC , its politics.

this should have been split the 10th amendment deals with this.

 

[American]

This is going to be a headache.



Supreme Court splits 4-4, again, in state sovereignty fight - POLITICO

Just how long will the Supreme Court vacancy go unfilled?

When a liberal complains about the Supreme Court, that's a positive.

 

[CanadaJohn]

We need to read on the decisions before calling it political.....just saying.

Since there are no written decisions, regarding the matters at issue in the cases, that's hard to do. I think when the left leaning Justices are all on one side and the right leaning Justices are all on the other side, it's fair to argue that political ideology is what is guiding their decisions not to take up a lower court ruling.

 

[ludin]

Since there are no written decisions, regarding the matters at issue in the cases, that's hard to do. I think when the left leaning Justices are all on one side and the right leaning Justices are all on the other side, it's fair to argue that political ideology is what is guiding their decisions not to take up a lower court ruling.

I think they are splitting cases on purpose. they will not make a decision until the other seat is filled.
to me this is a high crime of office. the fact that they are betraying the constitution is bad enough
this makes it even worse.

 

[Joe Steel]

This is going to be a headache.



Supreme Court splits 4-4, again, in state sovereignty fight - POLITICO

Just how long will the Supreme Court vacancy go unfilled?

Until the Republicans stop their obstruction or the President mans-up and ignores the Senate.