Justice Ginsburg laments deadlocks on short-handed court

[unknown]

Justice Ginsburg laments deadlocks on short-handed court

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GINSBURG

Aug 19, 4:29 PM EDT
MORGAN LEE

POJOAQUE, N.M. (AP) -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said split 4-4 decisions by the short-handed high court have left important public policy issues up in the air, including the president's immigration plan, that are likely to be revisited by the court in the future.

Addressing a gathering of attorneys in New Mexico on Friday, Ginsburg highlighted the impact of recent split decisions by the Supreme Court that left in place lower court rulings on immigration, organized labor fees and the ability of Native American tribal courts to decide controversies involving visitors.

The Supreme Court has been working without a ninth justice since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. Senate Republicans have refused to hold confirmation hearings for Obama's Supreme Court nominee ahead of the presidential election.

Ginsberg said eight justices "was not good enough" to decide several crucial cases.

"When we are evenly divided, it is equivalent to denying review," Ginsburg said. "There were important issues in these four cases that we were unable to decide, and they will come back again and one of them was the president's immigration policy."

{.. snip ..}

[unknown]

Wow! Can you just imagine what the court will look like if Hillary gets elected.

Look at the type of justices that Trump has listed. Very conservative. Very constitutional. Very PRO-LIFE.

[Oceander]

Wow! Can you just imagine what the court will look like if Hillary gets elected.

Look at the type of justices that Trump has listed. Very conservative. Very constitutional. Very PRO-LIFE.

Prove to me that he would actually nominate any of them if he were president.  He has freely admitted that he's a liar when it comes to negotiations - he calls it telling truthful hyperbole - so he cannot be trusted to actually nominate them.  It's easy to name a list of people, that doesn't commit you to anything.  Remember when Obama promised to "listen" to GOP complaints about Obamacare?  Well, listening isn't the same thing as paying any attention to, but people bought it anyways.

Trump is a liar - he says so himself - so he can't be trusted.  Everything he says now is just puffery, "truthful hyperbole" to draw you in and get you emotionally invested in his campaign, and most of which he either won't, or won't be able to, implement.

That is why I cannot support Trump:  I cannot trust him.  I have no more faith in him to do the right thing than I have in Clinton to do the right thing.

[montanajoe]

When Hilliary gets elected the Senate better confirm Garland on November 9th before Obama withdraws the nomination. He's the most judicially Conservative nominee we will see for at least the next 4 years...

[unknown]

Prove to me that he would actually nominate any of them if he were president. 

Prove to me that he won't. I bet you can't. Go for it. Try it. Good luck!   

 

   

[unknown]

When Hilliary gets elected the Senate better confirm Garland on November 9th before Obama withdraws the nomination. He's the most judicially Conservative nominee we will see for at least the next 4 years...

Interesting point. If Hillary gets elected, you bring up a good point.

Just curious.. Is Obama's nomination of Garland still valid? How long does is that nomination good, and does Obama actually have to withdraw it?

[unknown]

[montanajoe]

Interesting point. If Hillary gets elected, you bring up a good point.

Just curious.. Is Obama's nomination of Garland still valid? How long does is that nomination good, and does Obama actually have to withdraw it?

He could be confirmed in the lame duck secession after the election, but if the Dims regain control of the Senate they will suddenly be the ones stalling the vote for the new President and new Senate. Obama can withdraw the nomination at anytime, but I suspect there was an agreement in place before Garland accepted that he would not, but its Obama so no telling what he might do.

IMO it would would be wise for the Senate to confirm him in late October if it still looks like Hilliary will be elected.

[unknown]

He could be confirmed in the lame duck secession after the election, but if the Dims regain control of the Senate they will suddenly be the ones stalling the vote for the new President and new Senate. Obama can withdraw the nomination at anytime, but I suspect there was an agreement in place before Garland accepted that he would not, but its Obama so no telling what he might do.

IMO it would would be wise for the Senate to confirm him in late October if it still looks like Hilliary will be elected.

Thanks..

So it's really all up in the air with too many unknowns right now.

[Oceander]

It's not we who nominated the one candidate who will lose to Clinton.  That was the Trump boot-lickers' doing.  It's your fault, and all your fault.  If you had listened to reason instead of your own fear, hatred, and spite, then this would not have happened.

Thank you Trump boot-lickers for giving us President H. Clinton.

[skeeter]

"Ginsberg said eight justices "was not good enough" to decide several crucial cases."

Obviously she's referring to those cases where lower courts have delivered what she determines are unsatisfactory rulings.

I reckon the old goat is perfect happy with a Scalia-less SCOTUS where cases like Freidrichs vs. CTA are concerned. To a leftist like her the ends justifies the means, after all.

[skeeter]

Oh no. You Trump people made that call back during the primaries.

We warned you.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Ginsburg is acting with the height of hypocrisy.

She thinks she alone can decide critical Court dictates.

If she really felt the way she does about the good of the country, she can execute a very easy solution - step aside and make the court less jammed up.

Why she doesn't is she wants decisions HER way rather than what is good for America.

[Fishrrman]

"U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said split 4-4 decisions by the short-handed high court have left important public policy issues up in the air, including the president's immigration plan, that are likely to be revisited by the court in the future."

Her idea of breaking the gridlock would involve getting a couple more liberals on the Court so the left could resolve these "important policy issues" to its liking.