What happens when SCOTUS decisions end in a tie (Congress, legal, Obama)
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 YOUR problem not mine.....the point is, the lower courts decision is in effect until the SC rules...why do you have a problem with that? If it's a tie, the SC can hear the case again, right? What if they defer the hearing?
Since I don't have an appeal before the Court, I'm not sure how it is my problem.
You asked a question and I provided you with an answer.
Anyway, there is a old saying that "justice delayed is justice denied."
If you were to think about it even you might be able to remember recent Supreme Court decisions that were matters of life and death, an innocent prisoner on death row, a person awaiting a medical procedure, a business on the brink of bankruptcy who cannot afford to wait a year for final disposition of their case by a full court.
Since I don't have an appeal before the Court, I'm not sure how it is my problem.
You asked a question and I provided you with an answer.
Anyway, there is a old saying that "justice delayed is justice denied."
If you were to think about it even you might be able to remember recent Supreme Court decisions that were matters of life and death, an innocent prisoner on death row, a person awaiting a medical procedure, a business on the brink of bankruptcy who cannot afford to wait a year for final disposition of their case by a full court.
Like I said… think.
You said, if the court had 5 sympathetic justices....well now they don't, that is your problem, not mine.
You provided your opinion, not an answer...
Yes, please think, even when the SC has made a decision, it does not provide the decision at that point in time, does it? Of course not....
Since I don't have an appeal before the Court, I'm not sure how it is my problem.
You asked a question and I provided you with an answer.
Anyway, there is a old saying that "justice delayed is justice denied."
If you were to think about it even you might be able to remember recent Supreme Court decisions that were matters of life and death, an innocent prisoner on death row, a person awaiting a medical procedure, a business on the brink of bankruptcy who cannot afford to wait a year for final disposition of their case by a full court.
Like I said… think.
The overwhelming majority of cases aren't decided by a bare majority, the usual 5-4 are political decisions. Cases will still be heard, it's just possible for a tie now. But the justices don't vote 5-4 on the matters you're describing. They do on hot button issues because of the PR (who appointed the Justices matters sometimes).
Most cases will still be adjudicated until an appointment is made. Republicans could really shoot themselves in the foot of they play their hand in this. Imagine, delaying and denying a moderate and agreeable justice from Obama only to have a DNC candidate win the General Election.
They'd end up with an even more liberal court, bad PR etc.
You said, if the court had 5 sympathetic justices....well now they don't, that is your problem, not mine.
You provided your opinion, not an answer...
Yes, please think, even when the SC has made a decision, it does not provide the decision at that point in time, does it? Of course not....
When are you going to figure out that some people here actually argue points out of indisputable objectivity rather than political bias. Ties created by vacancies can and will adversely effect appellants attempting to appeal any decision before the Court and sometimes those decisions are time sensitive.
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?
They can defer a decision. There's a few interesting cases that could be bad news for Rs and Obama as well. One is the fate of his deferral of prosecution of illegals. A tie would go against him. For the Rs, the gerrymandering in Virginia would not stand, but a tie would not apply the ruling to the rest of the country. It's best we have 9.
The overwhelming majority of cases aren't decided by a bare majority,
I understand that, but that is irrelevant to the point.
Quote:
The usual 5-4 are political decisions.
If that is the argument then every case outside of those reach unanimously are political decision. Whether the death penalty is cruel and usual punishment is political, whether a state's abortion restrictions are unconstitutional are political, voting rights cases are political, class action suits for sex discrimination are political, domestic surveillance is political, as such virtually every case before the current court is political.
Quote:
Cases will still be heard, it's just possible for a tie now. But the justices don't vote 5-4 on the matters you're describing. They do on hot button issues because of the PR (who appointed the Justices matters sometimes).
Oh really?
Brumfield v. Cain 5-4 decision on California's imposition of the death penalty for an individual with a low function IQ.
My contention is neither liberal or conservative, a tied court that eliminates a final adjudication by the Court is harmful to the process of justice no matter how you slice it, be that harm to one appellant or one hundred.
Most cases will still be adjudicated until an appointment is made. Republicans could really shoot themselves in the foot of they play their hand in this. Imagine, delaying and denying a moderate and agreeable justice from Obama only to have a DNC candidate win the General Election.
They'd end up with an even more liberal court, bad PR etc.
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.
On the other hand, you could look at it like this; the next president will decide the balance of the court anyway, what with 2 or 3 more appointments expected, so is it really worth the bad PR for Republicans to hold up this confirmation?
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.
On the other hand, you could look at it like this; the next president will decide the balance of the court anyway, what with 2 or 3 more appointments expected, so is it really worth the bad PR for Republicans to hold up this confirmation?
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. Why is this suddenly an issue, I don't recall this coming up when Reagan appointed 3 justices so why now?
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.
