Supreme Court Hands Down First 4-To-4 Decision Since Antonin Scalia’s Death

[Cryptoad]

Source: Huff

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued its first evenly split ruling since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia: a decision in a minor banking case involving spouses who serve as guarantors for each other’s debts.

The 4-to-4 ruling was “per curiam,” which means it was handed down in the name of the entire court, and nobody really knows what justice was on which side.

The opinion was just one line long: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.”

That means the ruling sets no nationwide precedent and leaves the lower-court ruling as the final decision in the case

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-first-4-4-split_us_56f1561de4b03a640a6ba559?

[brush]

1. Seems if the 4-4 decisions keep on even more pressure will be applied to Turtle Man to hold . . .

a hearing for Garland as SCOTUS rulings like this have zero impact so we are essentially operating without a Supreme Court.

[jmowreader]

2. Oh, there's a simple way to solve the Garland problem...

All the Supremes need do is find a lower-court ruling the Republicans really hate - a case where the lower court found in favor of more regulation would be good - and "affirm by an equally divided court."

[brush]

3. So someone would have to bring such a case to the court and get it on the docket?

Hope that happens. Maybe a progressive legal group can get that going.

[jmowreader]

4. And it'd have to be quick because there are only a few weeks left in the current session

[lagomorph777]

5. Isn't a tie the opposite of a decision?

This is messed up!

[greymouse]

6. What?

How can a tie be a decision? I am missing something here.

[brush]

7. Yeah, with a 4-4 deadlock from SCOTUS, the circuit court's decision holds.

We effectively have no Supreme Court because of Turtle Man's obstructionism.

[Yo_Mama]

8. This is nonsense right now. For several reasons.

The first irrational aspect is that most cases aren't 4-4 and of course nothing changes then. The SC is going on hearing and deciding many cases, and in this case, the result is simply that the lower court decision stands. Even when there is a full slate of justices, occasionally one will recuse, and then we are left with the same possibility of a 4-4 split.

The second remarkably intense loss of orientation to reality in your post lies in the fact that it has been a week only since Garland's nomination was announced, and even for "clear sailing" nominees, the Senate takes much longer to act. There is no possible way another justice could have been confirmed by now.

There is a pretty formal process. The Senate Judiciary Committee interviews the candidate, votes, and makes a recommendation to the full Senate, which then votes. Before it gets to that, their staffers prepare reports and analyses. The ABA standing committee submits its own recommendation to the Judiciary Committee. They wouldn't even schedule a hearing before that:
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/federal_judiciary/resources/supreme-court-nominations.html

Before the interviews (public hearings by now), various members and staffers will talk to the nominee. I have read that several are doing so. It generally takes months for this process to complete even in relatively uncontroversial nominations.

President Obama didn't take an unreasonable length of time to select a nominee, so don't blame him either.

If we don't have action by the end of June, then I think we can start talking about the obstruction issue, although nominations have taken longer. It is bizarre to talk about it now, except as a prospective problem.

[brush]

9. The Senate Majority Leader saying there will be no hearing isn't obstructionism to you?

Now that's what I call nonsense.

[Yo_Mama]

10. It will be, if it comes true. What you wrote is not true now.

So far, he has accomplished exactly nothing out of the common run.

[brush]

11. It's still nonsense to say that as party leader, you won't allow hearings.

[sofa king]

12. That nuclear option is looking like a great decision now.

A deadlocked Supreme Court means the case defaults to the Court of Appeals decision, and the Republicans were busy blocking all of those nominees until we touched off the nuclear option back in November, '13.

That's probably why the Supreme Court decided to pack the docket with so many controversial cases this time around, so that the five bought justices could reverse the Appeals decisions that are increasingly falling on the side of reason, thanks to President Obama and the then-Democratic Senate.

Now, all of Scalia's pet cases--the ones he planned to reverse--get handed back without precedent, which ain't great but it's better than the crap the conservatives had planned for us this year.

Thank Elvis for Ruth's Chris and cigars; it is they who saved America from the conservative judicial agenda.

[Cryptoad]

13. u know if appeals be filled in any Fed Appeal court or,,

are they restricted to regions where u live?

[sofa king]

14. Yep.

It's not an ideal situation, but still better than gutting the EPA from the bench, for example, which already happened in January of this year.

[yellowcanine]

15. 4-4 decisions are the fly in the ointment of the Republican strategy.

I predict that this will make their base angry because as it is, there is now almost no chance of having any of their social agenda advanced. At least with a moderate Democrat they would have a chance, though maybe not a very good one.