SCOTUS judge drops out of Heller?

[usmarine0352_2005]

Some of the SCOTUS judges are older. It is not unreasonable to think that one of them could become ill.

What happens to D.C. vs. Heller if one of the judges was to say get ill (so ill that they had to retire) within this week or relatively soon?


What would happen with the decision?

 

[takhtakaal]

Hope it's Stevens or Ginsburg?

 

[Tribal]

Hope it's Stevens or Ginsburg?

Not High Road at all.

As for the OP's question, the remaining eight justices would simply consider the matter on their own, just as if a justice had to drop out due to a conflict of interest.

A pure 4-4 ruling would leave the lower court's decision intact: the DC gun ban struck down by the DC Circuit Court would stay down, but there wouldn't be much in the way of precedent for future cases and Miller would be unchanged. It's possible that in the two opinions future courts might find persuasive reasoning to declare the Second Amendment to describe an individual right in future cases, but Heller would be more of a footnote than a landmark.

 

[takhtakaal]

Tribal, it was tongue in cheek.

I hope they all live to riper-than-brie old, old ages and maintain their faculties to the end. Nonetheless, a change in the balance toward our favor would be better than one against.

 

[Dave Workman]

Gents, I think you all better hope that Justice Ginsburg gets a role in writing this decision, if her performance on the bench today was any indicator. She stunned a lot of people (not me, however) in the gun community today with the depth of her questions, and what appears to be a good understanding of what the Second Amendment is all about.

Not bad,, not bad at all.

 

[MechAg94]

Tongue in cheek is what the smiley faces are for. Make sure you communicate 100%. We can't read your mind and there are all kinds on these boards.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

If a justice was forced to retire from The Court for any reason, you can bank on the fact that the Democrats would not allow Bush to make an appointment in the last year of his term.

The Court would have 8 members for a year or so, and the new president would end up filling the vacancy.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Can justices abstain from voting? Would one not voting be a way for them to deliberately "strike down" the DC ban while leaving no precedent for other cases to be filed?

 

[mekender]

no way would a justice retire before this case is announced... the only way something would happen would be in case of death or disability, and even then, that justice's opinion might have already been written

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

I think they can do whatever they want. But it would be very rare for one to abstain unless they recused themselves for some reason.

What one could do is wire an opinion that is different from that of either "side". So you could have a 4-1-4 "decision" that would in essence strike down the ban while doing little else.

But if you have 5 on your side, it doesn't matter.

 

[Tribal]

Unless an emergency or unforeseen conflict-of-interest arises, I'm pretty sure that once a justice has heard argument (s)he must make some kind of a decision, even if it's simply to agree with what someone else wrote. Regardless of their views, all nine justices are professionals and wouldn't just shirk their duty: they might come out wishy-washy, but they'll at least put forth the effort to justify that view.

 

[SomeKid]

Dave,

Care to elaborate what she did?

 

[bogie]

Guys, remember too that the lower court made what they figured was a well-founded decision.

And the reason it's at the supreme court is that the Washington DC politicians are spending taxpayer money.

Someone needs to get spanked.