GOP gridlock spreads to Judicial branch

[Legion Troll]

The Supreme Court 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.

Leaving the law unsettled for now could potentially be good or bad news for major cases where future splits are a possibility — including pending disputes on abortion, affirmative action, public union fees, immigration and contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act.


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

 

[Leonthecat]

Turtle boy is setting up for a senate majority change in November.
The nation is fed up with his grid-lock politics.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

I actually read split 4-4 decisions are quite common. It's rather common that a judge will recuse themselves from a case.

Also the vast majority of cases handed down (like 85%+ ) are usually 9-0's. We have this idea the court is always at each others throats but that's usually on the super big high profile cases when the liberal judges can't help but be judicial activists. vast majority of time this doesn't happen.

 

[Legion Troll]

It's not the split that's unusual. The Court did not set a precedent in this case, leaving the question unsettled.

The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are usually not per curiam. Their decisions more commonly take the form of one or more opinions signed by individual justices which are then joined in by other justices.

Unanimous and signed opinions are not considered per curiam decisions, as only the court can officially designate opinions as per curiam. Per curiam decisions tend to be brief in length. The designation is stated at the beginning of the opinion.

The notable exception to the usual characteristics for a per curiam decision is the case of Bush v. Gore. Although it was per curiam,[5] there were multiple concurrences and dissents.

Examples include:

Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)
Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952)
Toolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U.S. 356 (1953)
One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960)
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969)
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (1976)
Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223 (1980)
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)
American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, 567 U.S.
Los Angeles County v. Rettele, 550 U.S. 609 (2007)
Mullenix v. Luna, 550 U.S. 2015



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_curiam_decision

 

[Konono]

Even if the GOP wanted to nominate him, he would not have been confirmed by now.

Legion Troll presents us with more outlandish Troll lies and tries to blame the GOP for this desicion when they were not at fault.

 

[zappasguitar]

Even if the GOP wanted to nominate him, he would not have been confirmed by now.

Legion Troll presents us with more outlandish Troll lies and tries to blame the GOP for this desicion when they were not at fault.

But they ARE at fault.

GOP obstructionism is responsible for the legislative and judicial gridlock that has taken over Washington DC.

Naturally, partisan trolls like Yoko-nono will give obstructionist GOP Senators a pass.

 

[Legion Troll]

The Constitution requires the president to submit nominations to the Senate for its advice and consent. Since the Supreme Court was established in 1789, presidents have submitted 161 nominations for the Court, including those for chief justice. Of this total, 124 were confirmed (7 declined to serve).


This chart lists nominations officially submitted to the Senate:


http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm

 

[Konono]

But they ARE at fault.

GOP obstructionism is responsible for the legislative and judicial gridlock that has taken over Washington DC.

Naturally, partisan trolls like Yoko-nono will give obstructionist GOP Senators a pass.

How is the GOP at fault in this decision? Even if they allowed the hearings, he would still not be confirmed or ready for this case.

Also, I did not insult you and yet you attack me with petty personal attacks and derision and you exhibited no civility.

I look forward to you explanation on both points.

 

[christiefan915]

Our clown Pat Toomey said: "It makes sense to the the American people a more direct say in this critical decision. I believe that the next court appointment should be made after the upcoming elections by the next president."

A letter writer to the Pittsburgh P-G responded this way.

“Senator: The people do not vote for Supreme Court justices and you know that. You want ‘the people’ to have a more direct say by casting their vote for president. They already did so twice, for President Barack Obama, and he still has 10 months of his term remaining. The Constitution says he shall make nominations to fill such vacancies. By large margins, polls of Americans of all political persuasions agree the Constitution should be followed now.

“If presidents shouldn’t nominate candidates during their final year (your arbitrary deadline), then why should you, in the final year of your Senate term, be able to sponsor legislation or vote?

“You previously served as president of The Club for Growth, a conservative PAC of anonymous donors now telling Republican candidates that if they support Donald Trump, the club will not provide any funding to help their campaigns. That sure doesn’t sound like ‘letting the people decide.’

“The Constitution is clear: Meet with the candidate, hold hearings and vote one way or another. Do your job!”

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion...enators-to-do-their-duty/stories/201603180140

 

[Stelakh]

I actually read split 4-4 decisions are quite common. It's rather common that a judge will recuse themselves from a case.

Also the vast majority of cases handed down (like 85%+ ) are usually 9-0's. We have this idea the court is always at each others throats but that's usually on the super big high profile cases when the liberal judges can't help but be judicial activists. vast majority of time this doesn't happen.

That is true.

However, it doesn't excuse the refusal to do their job that is being led by the cancer of the Senate, Mitch McConnell.

While the Court may often find itself sending out decisions that are unchanged due to an equal split among the Justices, or they may all find the same way in a particular case, when there is a case before the Court that actually needs a final decision, if they're split we're not going to get one.

By all accounts, President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland would, if it were allowed to take place, be confirmed quite swiftly.

Republicans have actually come out and said they'd vote for him without a moment's hesitation, but "there is a principle" involved.

Unfortunately, the principle they're standing on is usurpation of the Constitution and their Constitutional duty to provide "advice and consent" for and to the nomination.

What we need is a Constitutional Convention that would establish a new Amendment to the Constitution which would force our elected officials to actually do their jobs, regardless of what party they belong to.

Imagine how Congressmen and Senators would act if there was an Amendment that specifically states that if they don't do their jobs, then by Presumption of Delegation the duties they have but refuse to perform would then be transferred to a sitting President from the opposing party until such time as they start doing their own jobs again.

Of course, the Amendment would need to be carefully worded and strictly applied only in situations where obstructionism is so blatantly obvious, but we would never again experience this kind of partisan obstructionism because nobody would want to give Legislative authority to a President from an opposing party.

 

[Leonthecat]

That is true.

However, it doesn't excuse the refusal to do their job that is being led by the cancer of the Senate, Mitch McConnell.

While the Court may often find itself sending out decisions that are unchanged due to an equal split among the Justices, or they may all find the same way in a particular case, when there is a case before the Court that actually needs a final decision, if they're split we're not going to get one.

By all accounts, President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland would, if it were allowed to take place, be confirmed quite swiftly.

Republicans have actually come out and said they'd vote for him without a moment's hesitation, but "there is a principle" involved.

Unfortunately, the principle they're standing on is usurpation of the Constitution and their Constitutional duty to provide "advice and consent" for and to the nomination.

What we need is a Constitutional Convention that would establish a new Amendment to the Constitution which would force our elected officials to actually do their jobs, regardless of what party they belong to.

Imagine how Congressmen and Senators would act if there was an Amendment that specifically states that if they don't do their jobs, then by Presumption of Delegation the duties they have but refuse to perform would then be transferred to a sitting President from the opposing party until such time as they start doing their own jobs again.

Of course, the Amendment would need to be carefully worded and strictly applied only in situations where obstructionism is so blatantly obvious, but we would never again experience this kind of partisan obstructionism because nobody would want to give Legislative authority to a President from an opposing party.

The court is crippled. That can not be denied.