posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
purplecthulhu at 10:53am on 02/11/2004
purplecthulhu at 10:53am on 02/11/2004There seems to be general agreement that there is a strong chance of this year's US presidential elections ending up at the Supreme Court again. I now read here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-11-01-court_x.htm
(and elsewhere) that things could be worse...
It seems that Chief Justice Rehnquist not only has thyroid cancer but could be unable to sit in the SC for weeks or months. The possibility that he won't ever sit there again - he's 80, has cancer, has just had a tracheaotomy and is clearly ill - also exists. Rehnquist is currently the tie breaker in the court, swinging many decisions, including the result of the last presidential election, to the right.
What if we have a repeat of 2000, but, in Rehnquist's absence, now have an evenly split supreme court? Any likely remedy for this in the Consitiution (I don't know it so well that I know what it says) is likely to rest with those currently in power, who would happily swing the election in their own favour, but the public would clearly see this as self serving.
Let's hope there's a clear result tonight, and that everyone reading this who can vote, does.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-11-01-court_x.htm
(and elsewhere) that things could be worse...
It seems that Chief Justice Rehnquist not only has thyroid cancer but could be unable to sit in the SC for weeks or months. The possibility that he won't ever sit there again - he's 80, has cancer, has just had a tracheaotomy and is clearly ill - also exists. Rehnquist is currently the tie breaker in the court, swinging many decisions, including the result of the last presidential election, to the right.
What if we have a repeat of 2000, but, in Rehnquist's absence, now have an evenly split supreme court? Any likely remedy for this in the Consitiution (I don't know it so well that I know what it says) is likely to rest with those currently in power, who would happily swing the election in their own favour, but the public would clearly see this as self serving.
Let's hope there's a clear result tonight, and that everyone reading this who can vote, does.
worried
(no subject)
The swing voters tend to be judges like O'Connor and Kennedy.
If the vote is 4-4 then the decision of whichever lower court it came from stands, I think, but only in the lower court's jurisdiction (this theoretically could have happened in the Pledge of Allegiance case recently IIRC, as Scalia recused himself from voting).
(no subject)
Apologies for my poor wording.
(no subject)
(no subject)
But I can't see any Justice who is still alive recusing themselves or abstaining, as you say.
(no subject)
You're very knowledgeable about this, so maybe you would know: after Nov 2, but before the inaugeration, can the President (as of Nov 1, because say the election is in dispute) appoint a replacement SC judge if one of the judges should happen to have died or become incapacitated to the point that they cannot perform their function?
(no subject)
Are there emergency powers or anything that would allow the bypassing of the usual process (the senate confirmation hearings, etc.)?
(no subject)
There aren't any emergency powers to replace SC Justices that I know of. Given that the Senate is so evenly split, any even remotely controversial judge wouldn't have a chance of being appointed.
There's a session of Congress *after* the elections (a lame duck session), and theoretically a new judge could be appointed then, but I would be extremely surprised if one *could* be confirmed quickly enough. They have enough to tie up in that session already. So we are left with the 9 current judges until at least the New Year.
(no subject)
I don't remember if a SC judge can retire. I think he has to die, right? Doesn't this sound like the House of Lords?
(no subject)
SC judges can, I think, retire, but its *they're* choice. Nobody can fire them, which is kind of the point with an independent judiciary. I think the same does apply to the Law Lords, at least at the moment.
(no subject)
Supreme Court Justices can retire, but often they will hang on until a sympathetic President can replace them.
(no subject)
- the campaign phase
- the litigation phase
- the inauguration phase (also known as the protest phase)