Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's what makes the stakes so high and why I agree that the next president should make the nomination. Let the voters decide the direction this country goes in for the next generation or longer. Let this election be for all the marbles, and it inevitably will be.
But see, the voters DID decide in the 2012 election. It's not a new rule that the president gets to choose the SC nominees, and the voters elected Obama to be the president, along with all of the duties and responsibilities that go with it.
What the Republicans are suggesting is NOT allowing the voters to decide the direction of the country.
A president's term lasts for four years, not three years and one month, or however long the opposition party who happens to hold the Senate at the time decides it does.
There is no mechanism for SCOTUS to hold off on a decision until a tie-breaking member is appointed. That tie-breaking member can't weigh in on a case in which the member was not present for the ruling and arguments.
The mechanism is reargument once they have another appointee. Duplication of work? Yes. Small number of cases 5-4 going 4-4? Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
LOL, the lower court has already decided, what difference does it make if the SC decides (ties) to let the lower court decision go for a little longer?
I guess you are saying that all SC cases are prompt and all decisions are made very quickly?
Actually, yes. The Court's term begins the first Monday each October, and all cases before it in a particular term are typically decided before that term ends. It's unusual for a case granted cert. to linger for more than 10 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie
If the decision dies in the Supreme Court... can it be brought up again with a tie-breaker in play? Or does it require a new claimant?
Meaning if it goes out a 4-4 deadlock, can it come up again? The simple answer is no, that specific case probably cannot be brought up again (unless the Court allows rehearing). The more complicated answer is no, but . . . The Supreme Court has 2 typical reasons for hearing a case: 1) there is a circuit split on an issue, or 2) to resolve an important question of federal law, or to expressly review a decision of a lower court that conflicts directly with a previous decision of the Court. With either reason, while a deadlock "decides" the case by letting the circuit decision stand, the legal issue remains unresolved by the Supreme Court. Especially for reason 1), but also for reason 2), there is good reason to think the legal issue will come back to the Court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14
But see, the voters DID decide in the 2012 election. It's not a new rule that the president gets to choose the SC nominees, and the voters elected Obama to be the president, along with all of the duties and responsibilities that go with it.
What the Republicans are suggesting is NOT allowing the voters to decide the direction of the country.
A president's term lasts for four years, not three years and one month, or however long the opposition party who happens to hold the Senate at the time decides it does.
He will make an appointment, which the Senate should take under consideration and vote upon. Rejection is possible (though unusual in recent history for qualified candidates). Senate hearings and votes are really the Senate fulfilling its responsibility under the Constitution to advise and consent.
There is no mechanism for SCOTUS to hold off on a decision until a tie-breaking member is appointed. That tie-breaking member can't weigh in on a case in which the member was not present for the ruling and arguments.
Yes, lower court decisions stand unless and until they are reversed by a higher court. Tie goes to the runner, well, the lower court decision.
BUT unlike a majority decision, there is NO precedent set when a lower court ruling is upheld in a tie, so SCOTUS is not really "deciding" X, as much as they are "not presently reversing" X. A majority decision is very much "deciding" X, and thereby establishing a hurdle for any future SCOTUS to reverse it.
There is no mechanism for SCOTUS to hold off on a decision until a tie-breaking member is appointed. That tie-breaking member can't weigh in on a case in which the member was not present for the ruling and arguments.
Well, scary as it might be, in that case we will not be subjects of an unelected quasi king ruling by decree and an assumed unconstitutional power to rewrite laws at the discretion of five of its members.
That also applies to lower courts since all legislative powers belong to the elected legislature.
When something comes up that is not addressed by the Constitution or laws enacted by Congress, then the matter is none of the federal government`s business and it becomes a state issue or a private matter.
Of course, the left hates that idea because they need an unelected and unaccountable dictator to overrule the people because the people are bigots and can`t be trusted to do the right thing.
There is no mechanism for SCOTUS to hold off on a decision until a tie-breaking member is appointed. That tie-breaking member can't weigh in on a case in which the member was not present for the ruling and arguments.
With a tie, lower court ruling stands, and it has no national impact. When SC rules, it has national impact. If Row vs Wade had been 4-4 in SC, it would not have legalized abortion nationwide, and if gay marriage vote had been 4-4, gay marriage would not have been legalized nation wide, same with Obamacare etc. The Supreme Court actually serves a very important function, and not appointing the 9th judge cripples its function.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 02-18-2016 at 05:12 AM..
Let the voters decide the direction this country goes in for the next generation or longer. Let this election be for all the marbles, and it inevitably will be.
You are very good at repeating someone else's words
With a tie, lower court ruling stands, and it has no national impact. When SC rules, it has national impact. If Row vs Wade had been 4-4 in SC, it would not have legalized abortion nationwide, and if gay marriage vote had been 4-4, gay marriage would not have been legalized nation wide, same with Obamacare etc.
The Supreme Court actually serves a very important function, and not appointing the 9th judge cripples its function.
No it doesn't!
You could argue that not having 13,15 or 105 (odd number) of justices cripples the function!
Ridiculous!
Go study history my friend!
Quote:
The idea of having an even number of justices on the Supreme Court is not a new one. In fact, the Judiciary Act of 1789, which first set up the federal judicial system, established a six-person Supreme Court. And in its early years, the Republic clung to the even-number status quo.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
