4-4 SCOTUS tie simply affirms the Court of Appeals' ruling as it stands, right?

[Recursion]

It seems like the GOP would have a lot more to lose by letting the lower courts' rulings stand for a year than by having a liberal replace Scalia, unless my math is wrong.

[davidpdx]

1. That would assume the lower court ruled in favor of the correct side

Example: the lawsuit against the ACA, or the abortion case. My guess it will be a 70/30 split.

[still_one]

3. Actually most of the lower courts favor the progressives at this time. Regardless, the republicans

are not going to allow President Obama to appoint a SC nominee before the next election.

The SC has now moved up to the top of the list as an election issue

[sharp_stick]

2. Yes

the court can also hold the case over until another justice is confirmed but they probably would only do that in cases where there are mixed verdicts coming from appeal courts.

[Depaysement]

4. Correct

Or the ruling of the highest court of a state on direct appeal to USSC. They occasionally grant certiorari on those cases too.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. There's more: the Court of Appeals decision can't be used as SCOTUS precedent.

Example: let's say the Union Dues case was decided in the lower federal court against collecting the dues. That decision would stand with a 4-4 tie BUT if a future case on the same or similar issue came up, the 4-4 decision couldn't be used as legal authority as guidance. It could be present to the Court for future consideration with precedent.

[Gman]

7. The lower court decision generally becomes the precedent

Although the argument isn't guaranteed to work in another court of appeals. But then again this court threw stare decisis out on its head.

[Recursion]

9. It can't be used as direct precedent *outside of that circuit* (right?) (nt)

[B Calm]

6. If they obstruct a Supreme Court nominee, I see Democrats voting in mass in November.

[Princess Turandot]

8. There's a good discussion of this on SCOTUSblog...

The lower court's ruling stands, "as if the Supreme Court had never heard the case".

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/what-happens-to-this-terms-close-cases/

[Recursion]

10. Thanks! (nt)

[onenote]

11. What am I missing? How do they lose more by not confirming a replacement?

If the Court affirms a lower court ruling by a 4-4 vote, it does not carry the same weight of precedent. And if Scalia was replaced with a liberal Justice, the GOP position loses by 5-4 (assuming Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan all join with the new Justice) and it becomes a weightier precedent.

[Recursion]

13. Because "we" have majorities on most of the circuits (nt)

[onenote]

16. I get that. But not every case is decided by a panel of "our" judges

even where "we" have a majority of the judges on the circuit. By blocking a nomination from being confirmed now, the repubs leave themselves the possibility of getting to name a conservative justice if they can pull off winning the white house in November. It would seem that the worst case scenario for them from stonewalling is that they end up no worse than where they would have ended up if they had confirmed someone this year.

[Recursion]

17. True, but by a numbers game they would do better with an appointable left-of-center SCOTUS justice.

Because Kennedy is still such a damn wild card.

[kentuck]

12. A good time for the lower court to over-rule Citizens United?

Huh?

[onenote]

14. Is there a pending case out there where a court could do that?

[B Calm]

15. My Google search shows

nothing.

[brooklynite]

18. Add to which...

...the 5-4 ruling on CU is considered precedent-making, and would guide a Court of Appeals ruling.

[DCBob]

19. Interesting.

I like the way you think.

[Yo_Mama]

22. Lower courts never do get to overrule the Supreme Court.

Rarely, the SC does overrule itself.

[former9thward]

20. It would mean Obama's immigration orders would be banned.

Since lower courts have rejected them. It would mean various abortion restrictions in some states would stand since lower courts have allowed it. So it would be a mixed bag.

[herding cats]

21. The immigration matter has potential to go badly.

The prevailing wisdom is, at least in the case of Texas, the abortion restrictions are still likely to be overturned now.

[MohRokTah]

23. A little more detail on that.

IT only confirms the ruling as it stands in the jurisdiction where the ruling was made and CANNOT be used as precedent in any other district.

Which means con law can be different depending upon where you live until the SCOTUS makes a full ruling.

In other words, Texas may be able to ban abortion while California cannot if two separate cases with two separate rulings are brought.