With Scalia gone....

Discussion in 'Legal' started by 627PCFan, Feb 13, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 627PCFan

    627PCFan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,160
    Location:
    Sterling, VA
    The court is down to 8, I assume for the foreseeable future. If there's a 4-4 deadlock does the court default to the lower courts decision? Wouldn't that shift our desires to get our gun cases to the SC?
     
  2. Blackbeard

    Blackbeard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,722
    Location:
    Behind the Daley Curtain (IL)
    Depends what the lower court ruled.
     
  3. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,550
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    You need a constitutional scholar not an old naval officer.

    But, for 2¢, what I remember is that SC is held in aeyance until nine can be seated. Anything before the Court remains there, on hold, until they seat nine.
     
  4. gbran

    gbran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Location:
    california
  5. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    8,227
    Location:
    Virginia
    No, the Court can function with 8 Justices. But if there's a 4-4 tie, the decision of the lower court stands.
     
  6. joem1945

    joem1945 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    2,016
    Obama said he was going to submit some names. Can't he wait until the man is buried for crying out loud. Seems disrespectful to me.
     
  7. PapaG

    PapaG Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    5,012
    Location:
    Il
    I believe in the case of a decision already made but not "handed down", they can hand it down or retry. In the case of a tie, it does defer to the lower court ruling.
     
  8. HexHead

    HexHead Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,442
    Location:
    TN
    Though doesn't set national precedent.
     
  9. JackSprat

    JackSprat Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2016
    Messages:
    356
    Location:
    Jackson Co. WVa
    Ruth Bader Ginsberg will most likely be urged to retire in the next week or two,and OBummer will try to play both sides against the middle..He will appoint the oldest unhealthy conservative he can find to please the Republicans,and he will appoint the youngest healthiest liberal,athiest communist for his base.
     
  10. Bobson

    Bobson Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    4,289
    Location:
    Kendall County, TX
    Wouldn't surprise me. RBG will be 83 years old in a few weeks... Maybe not the oldest Justice to ever sit (or maybe she is, idk), but sticking around on the chance that another Democrat follows Obama in the WH seems like an unnecessary gamble. What are the odds she's got eight years of good health left in her, or even four?

    Ginsburg should have retired last year and let Obama replace her. They took a risk, and it worked out now that Scalia's passed. Not to be insensitive, but let's face it, it works out well for the Democrats.
     
  11. HankB

    HankB Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    5,266
    Location:
    Central Texas
    If the court deadlocks 4 - 4 that could lead to different Federal laws in different parts of the country; for example, if different district courts issue opposite rulings, a SCOTUS which can't resolve the differences would leave the individual district rulings in place, right?

    As for Ginsberg retiring to give BHO a shot at 2 nominations . . . Ginsberg leaving would reduce the court to 7 - and I'd expect a lot of 4-3 decisions. Her prompt departure would reduce the urgency of confirming a new appointment. And I don't see BHO being happy with the loss of a left wing activist vote.
     
  12. Mike OTDP

    Mike OTDP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    2,125
    Location:
    Somewhere in Maryland
    Losing Scalia probably does make a shift in strategy necessary. On the other hand, I've long believed that we've been too eager to fight this in the courts, instead of the legislature.

    I'd be pushing hard for a Federal law preempting the power to regulate firearms, ammunition, and accoutrements to the Federal government. The power to regulate the militia is assigned to Congress by the Constitution. And there is precedent for the Federal government to intervene when "bad actor" states are not conforming to national standards of civil liberties...the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act come immediately to mind.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice