Following the tragic and untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February, the eight remaining Supreme Court justices promised they’d take care of business until a new ninth justice joins them.
But their actions Monday prove otherwise. In fact, they’re so hopelessly deadlocked that they didn’t even bother to hear the case.
The latest unsigned, unanimous decision returning a high-profile dispute over access to birth control to lower courts was the latest example of the split court’s struggle to get its work done with an even number of justices.
The decision averted a 4-4 tie, which would have left different rules in place in different parts of the country concerning the availability of cost-free birth control for women who work for faith-affiliated groups. But the outcome was itself inconclusive and suggested that the justices could not form a majority to issue a significant ruling that would have settled the issue the court took the case to resolve.
“The court expresses no view on the merits of the cases,” the justices wrote, ending a major confrontation over Obama’s health care law with a whimper. The matter almost certainly will not return to the Supreme Court before the 2016 presidential election, and perhaps not until a new justice is confirmed to take Scalia’s seat, if at all.
President Barack Obama stated the obvious Monday in an interview with BuzzFeed. “I won’t speculate as to why they punted, but my suspicion is if we had nine Supreme Court justices instead of eight, we might have had a different outcome,” Obama said.
The justices took the case while the conservative Scalia was still alive and, based on his votes in earlier cases, he almost surely would have voted against the administration and in favor of the groups’ religious freedom rights.
With another 4-4 tie, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election carry’s with it serious implications for the future of the law of the land.
Will the Supreme Court continue uphold conservative American values?
In three earlier 4-4 splits, Scalia’s absence prevented the court from reaching conservative outcomes, including last week’s vote that spared an Alabama death-row inmate from execution. When the Supreme Court is tied, the decision by the lower court remains in effect, but no national precedent is set.
In other cases, the court has opted for narrow decisions that draw comfortable majorities, even if larger issues are left unresolved. In another case decided Monday, the court ruled 6-2 in favor of the Internet search firm Spokeo.com in a dispute with a Virginia man who complained Spokeo published false information about him. But the justices returned the case to the federal appeals court in San Francisco, where the man will have another chance to make his argument.
In another area, choosing cases to hear next term, the court also is proceeding with caution, opting against cases that seemed destined to produce liberal-conservative splits until there is a ninth and potentially tie-breaking vote.
Among the 31 cases the court has heard, but not yet resolved, the challenge to Obama’s immigration actions is the highest-profile case with the potential for a 4-4 tie. Such a result would doom the administration’s program to shield millions of immigrants from deportation and give them the right to work in the United States.
The justices have been careful to avoid taking sides in the partisan debate over whether the Senate should confirm Judge Merrick Garland, nominated by Obama to take Scalia’s seat. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan all have said the court would find its way, until the bench is once again full.
Only Justice Clarence Thomas has called the months since Scalia’s death “a most difficult term.” Thomas, though, addressing graduates at Michigan’s Hillsdale College, might have been referring to the death of his close friend as well as to the state of the court.
Garland would presumably move the court in a more liberal direction on many issues, given that he would replace a conservative icon. That might be so even with Garland’s reputation for moderation in nearly 20 years on the federal appeals court in Washington.
Senate Republicans have refused to hold a vote, or even a hearing, on Garland’s nomination, saying the choice should be left to Obama’s successor.
On the left and the right, reactions to Monday’s outcome focused on the presidential election and the future of the court.
“The upcoming 2016 election could determine who sits next on this court. Access to reproductive health care and affordable birth control is on the line, and we need a court that respects women. Women simply can’t and won’t stay on the sidelines with this much at stake,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood of America.
Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the Judicial Crisis Network and an opponent of Garland’s confirmation, said the decision “highlights the stakes for the next Supreme Court justice.”
Until then, it seems the Supreme Court will get little done.
The Associated Press contributed to this article.
The s c should be shut down, it’s completes no functional purpose, 4 for 4 against . they’re like a bunch 5th graders fighting over an ice cream cone !!! They all should be In a home !!!!! so sad !!!!
NO, you don’t shut the S.C. down. Let the Court assign 7 of it’s members to each case for the vote, on a rotating basis.
The high court only had 3 justices to begin with.
Amen, common sens solution, but the old farts on the bench cant come up with that, they are to occupied with taking Geritol, and trying to remember what the hell they had for lunch…………………..
They should not be jobs for life. that is the problem.
Your name has been removed from thoughts of being selected
for any goBerment job . . . elected or appointed!
You are very right! These turkeys are senile!! They do not care what the law is! They just vote the way their masters want them to do so!! I think the libs, obummer had Scalia murdered to further his agenda! He knows Trump will get rid of all his illegal shit and his only accomplishment will be failure!!
They will just have to be crippled until a new President is in office and appoints someone. It is to everyone’s advantage to allow the people to choose the next President. That President will choose the Supreme Court Justice. It is the right thing to do.
Hillary wants to put Obama on SCOTUS
It is likely that we may end up with a republican president and a democrat controlled senate. It may be years before the senate considers a supreme court nominee.
Jim
Ron
The supreme court can’t reach a decision because the court is also corrupt. Decisions should be based upon our Consitution’s original intent and not by party lines. We need to change the supreme court and have the judges elected by the people and not for a lifetime position but to serve in terms.
YES!
Yep, the purpose of the Supreme Court is to judge all decisions by the Executive and Legislative Brances AND lower court decisions based on the U.S. Constitution.
Bingo Wendy. The supreme court valuates court cases based on the Constitution, period.
The Supreme Liars are lying to us, I mean American Citizens, The others, Who cares. Anyway Kagan could have pulled herself off the case because she was in on Obamacare. But on the other cases, Anyone of them could have recused themselves to get a good ruling.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the CONGRESS may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior. and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
The supreme court (nor any federal judge) does not have Constitutional authority to make laws or pass legislation. If a justice does not perform on good behavior Congress has the authority to remove that justice from office. And the Senate has no obligation to confirm anyone just because the President has nominated them. They must be fully investigated and vetted.
That was his whole purpose to get who he wanted in place as a justice supreme just so she could hold on to his ONAMA CARE which is a fluke . And this supreme justice is sitting
By the waste side doing NOTHING as our country falls apart these people are on taxpayer’s payroll and are doing an injustice
For WE THE PEOPLE .
Let’s start cleaning house!! Fire them all!
I would rather this court do nothing than to produce a lot of bad rulings. Cecile Richards would like to see a liberal justice replace Scalia so the baby slaughter industry which she heads could profitably operate for decades to come making a lot of money murdering and trafficking the bodies of dead babies.
Eventually the pro-abortion judges, along with the abortion industry executives, will get to stand before God’s judgment seat and answer for the blood on their hands. But, that doesn’t mean we should give them free reign to practice their evil now.
Burton Hughes-
Great suggestion, but doubt it’s implementation; the egos are too huge to allow for such a common-sense solution.
OTOH, since SCOTUS judges may ONLY hold their offices “during good behavior,” it should be VERY easy to find a current SCOTUS judge who has issued a “ruling” that effectively changes the Constitution, which law-MAKING is not within the scope of their lawful powers. Such a judge should be immediately removed. One hopes the lesson will not be lost on the remaining judges.
AND, since Congress has the Constitutional power to SET the number of judges, they can move it back to seven and be done with it.
All the more reason that we need to get this country back on the ‘right track’ with a conservative Supreme Court Justice, especially in light of the ‘trainwreck’ that Baroke Obammy created with his past TWO SCOTUS appointees, ULTRA-liberals Kagan and Sotomayor.
IMHO, it’s better that NO rulings are made rather than BAD rulings.
Don-
IMHO, it’s better that NO rulings are made rather than BAD rulings.
Absolutely correct.
i also think that any and all supplicants to the Supreme Court who are denied a hearing by them should be assigned to another court that WILL hear them; after all, that IS one of the named powers of SCOTUS, that they can set up inferior courts. Going a bit further, i think SCOTUS should set up a special court to review ALL Congressional legislation for Constitutional-compliance BEFORE it’s sent to the president for signature, with the judge’s recommendation attached.
That may well have stopped a great deal of Constitution-shredding legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act, and the various NDAA acts, etc., right dead in their tracks. In fact, if such a court as i have imagined exists, it could (and IMO, should) also recommend Perjury indictments for every CongressCretin who even VOTES in favor of some Unconstitutional CRAP.
There’s a REASON why Article 6 was included in the Constitution, to ensure that NO man nor body of men could trump or violate the SUPREME law of the land without going through the exhaustive process of Amending it. Unless, of course, public servants and public employees can pass bills and Acts that are CLEARLY Unconstitutional, and NO ONE EVER HOLDS THEM TO ACCOUNT, that is.
This is a complete abrogation of the responsibilities of the supreme court by the supreme court. A tie is just that, it is not a license to send the case back for negotiation. It should be a formal ruling wherein the lower court ruling stands.
Once again, Roberts’s Rules of Order overrides the Constitution.
Jim
FYI: The makeup of the Court, at the moment, consists of 5 Roman Catholics and 3 Jews. NO Protestants.
5 are from the Northeast corridor (liberal areas all), 2 are from California (that speaks for its self) and 1 from the South (Conservative).
IF Judge Garland were to be appointed, there would now be 4 Jews, 5 Roman Catholics and still not one Protestant. Would that be a balanced court or what?!
The reason they cannot decide on anything is that this Court is Biased a true un-biased court would be voting for a verdict in line with the Constitution while this Supreme Court votes in line with their Party affiliation. Abolish this Court & do away with Appointments the cause of this problem let the People Elect these Judges & limit them to two terms with Retirement & Benefits according to their length of service. Health Benefit will be Obama Care that was approved & enacted by the Court.