General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSCOTUSblog: What happens to this Term’s close cases?
The passing of Justice Scalia of course affects the cases now before the Court. Votes that the Justice cast in cases that have not been publicly decided are void. Of course, if Justice Scalias vote was not necessary to the outcome for example, if he was in the dissent or if the majority included more than five Justices then the case will still be decided, only by an eight-member Court.
If Justice Scalia was part of a five-Justice majority in a case for example, the Friedrichs case, in which the Court was expected to limit mandatory union contributions the Court is now divided four to four. In those cases, there is no majority for a decision and the lower courts ruling stands, as if the Supreme Court had never heard the case. Because it is very unlikely that a replacement will be appointed this Term, we should expect to see a number of such cases in which the lower courts decision is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
The most immediate and important implications involve that union case. A conservative ruling in that case is now unlikely to issue. Other significant cases in which the Court may now be equally divided include Evenwel v. Abbott (on the meaning of the one person, one vote guarantee), the cases challenging the accommodation for religious organizations under the Affordable Care Acts contraceptive mandate, and the challenge to the Obama administrations immigration policy.
The Court is also of course hearing a significant abortion case, involving multiple restrictions adopted by Texas. In my estimation, the Court was likely to strike those provisions down. If so, the Court would still rule deciding the case with eight Justices.
<snip>
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/what-happens-to-this-terms-close-cases
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)That means that the right wing will try to get cases to the supreme court through midwest courts in the red states indicated here...
Read more here how they would be resolved...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027607199
longship
(40,416 posts)Many thanks. Puts things into perspective.
I still think that this will be a rather large campaign issue with the current GOP position -- that the next president should fill the vacancy -- a rather large liability for the GOP not only for the POTUS election but especially for the US Senate where the GOP is in rather deep poo-poo. They have too many senators in blue states up for reelection, the counter for Dems is just maybe one.
So, if you are McConnell, what do you do? Apparently, Scalia's body isn't even cold yet, and he has already opined that Obama not be allowed to fill the vacancy. Lindsay and Cruz have likewise already echoed McConnell.
They rolled the dice, but I do not see anyway that it is a winning strategy. How are moderates and independents going to go along with that? And there is no way the GOP wins in November without them.
Plus, Bernie and Hillary are going to be all over this, to say nothing about President Obama. Harry Reid has already threatened them not to do it.
Clusterfuck in the making.