search
top

Tie Cases Will Be Reargued

So notes SCOTUSBlog. Typically when the Supreme Court is even numbered, splits uphold whatever the lower court ruling was. This indicates cases that split will be reheard when the next justice is confirmed. We have no Second Amendment cases before the Court currently, but the stakes in this election keep getting higher and higher, and yet the three ring circus carries on.

We’re going to need more than hope to hold the Senate firm on not voting on Obama’s nominee. It’ll take a lot of letters, e-mails and phone calls to keep Senators in line.

This may be all I have for today. The news cycle is not thrilling. Maybe a news post tomorrow.

7 Responses to “Tie Cases Will Be Reargued”

  1. Archer says:

    Typically when the Supreme Court is even numbered, splits uphold whatever the lower court ruling was.

    True, but the important bit is that such “affirmations” do not set precedent. As near as I can tell, with the exception of the case already having been granted cert, it’s as if the case was never heard before SCOTUS to begin with.

    Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

  2. dwb says:

    Well, I think it depends on the nominee. Some out-there potential nominations include NV Gov Sandoval. I think such a nomination would be unlikely but possible.

    There is also a chance that Ginsburg announces she is stepping down. That would pave the way for Obama to nominate two candidates, one conservative and one liberal.

    In my mind, all options should be on the table until we see the nominee. Personally I think that the most likely scenario is that no one good wants be nominated this year because of the climate, since it would blow their chances later – unless its guaranteed they will get past 54 GOP Senators.

    • Jim says:

      That would pave the way for Obama to nominate two candidates, one conservative and one liberal.

      Yeah, like that’s going to happen in our lifetime. Someone please wake up.

  3. Patrick says:

    Affirmance (split) decisions are not good for either side right now. The libs lost the immigration issue in the 5th, and an affirmance would lock that in solid. Likewise, cons would lose a chance to fight over union dues and an affirmative action case out of (again) Texas. Contraception mandates are a mess for both sides. And then there is the EPA fight, which is also a mess but probably won’t get argued until 2017 anyway.

    And those are just what I remember off the top of my head.

    Re-arguing these is probably in the cards, but that just puts the issue of who will be nominated front and center. I expect we’ll see Hillary actually name some names as part of her campaign sure to come, chock full of virtue-signaling personages that represent victimhood classes of entire (narrow) swaths of coastal constiuencies we already hear from daily.

    Trump will simply announce he will nominate “someone brilliant” and then probably demand the Senate confirm his daughter’s neighbor’s kid brother who processes bail bonds over at the Brooklyn courthouse — all because “Vinnie’s a good guy and knows stuff.”

  4. aerodawg says:

    I’ve hit my guys in the Senate. Told Sessions my expectation was any nominee wouldn’t make it out of committee….

top