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.
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.
What happens if this is a close election in November and comes down to a recount in a swing state where the results are in question, think 2000 in Florida.
Plenty of cases that will come up deadlocked in the next year or so, putting this off until April of 2017 isn't an option.
Sure it is. Most SCOTUS decisions don't end in 5-4 decisions and the court will be in recess for 4 of those months anyway.
Quote:
Why is this suddenly an issue, I don't recall this coming up when Reagan appointed 3 justices so why now?
I'm so sick of people bringing up precedents from what amounts to another lifetime ago in political time. Are you going to pretend for a minute that politically, things are the same now as they were 30 years ago? Scalia was confirmed 98-0, you think that could possibly happen now? We, as a nation, have never been more divided politically. Someone brought up a precedent from the civil war, but WE ARE having a non-violent civil war in this country. We have never been so polarized. Something has to give. There has to be a breaking point and I believe that this election is it. This election will set the course of our country on a non-reversible path for generations to come, I believe. That is why letting the next President, whoever it may be, pick the next Justice, is so appealing. May the best ideology win out.
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.
The voters also decided in the 2014 midterms when they sent a Republican majority to the Senate. You act as if they weren't also elected by the people to act on their behalf. Republicans will do what they will do, and they will have to answer to the voters for their decisions.
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.
I do not regard tie votes as "re-affirming" a lower court's decision. Tie votes simply kick the can down the road for a future Court to decide. They do not "uphold" a lower court's decision as much as they "fail to reverse" the lower court's decision
I do not regard tie votes as "re-affirming" a lower court's decision. Tie votes simply kick the can down the road for a future Court to decide. They do not "uphold" a lower court's decision as much as they "fail to reverse" the lower court's decision
Same when they decide not to take up a case. This is a distinction that a lot of people seem to fail to understand.
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.
