summary The Supreme Court on Monday avoided issuing a major ruling on a challenge brought by religiously affiliated non-profit groups to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate. In a unanimous decision, the justices wrote that they were not deciding the case on the merits but instead sent the case back down to the lower courts to work out a compromise. The White House has argued that the divided court and prospect for 4-4 rulings on major cases is a primary reason why the Senate should act on President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to fill Scalia's seat. Scalia, a stalwart conservative, would likely have ruled against the Obama administration.
analysis Given the gravity of the dispute parties should be able to arrive at an approach. The approach from the justices is to avoid saying anything on the merits and try to make the case go away which in reality will not cover up the situation. Also, this was the fourth time the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the signature legislative achievement of the Obama administration which means it is attack on top of attack on to Obama. Obama said that a fully staffed Supreme Court would have ruled differently.
synthesis It goes by the name The Thurmond Rule — an unwritten rule, not legally binding — holds that a judicial nominee should not be confirmed in the months leading up to an election. It has its origins in June 1968, when Senator Strom Thurmond, Republican of South Carolina, blocked President Lyndon B. Johnson’s appointment of Justice Abe Fortas as chief justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment