# Could the refusal of Garland's nomination dangerously politicize the Supreme Court? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 3, 2016, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083 "2016-04-03T15:09:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/101 "2016-04-06T15:16:34Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Cruz is arguing for what amounts to mob rule instead, and so are you. Nonsense. Advocating for amendment, _under the rules established in the Constitution_, is in no sense arguing for mob rule. (I hate the idea that I have to defend Ted “Theodore” Cruz even a little in order to back up **Mace** , but whatcha gonna do.) ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/102 "2016-04-06T15:21:30Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Nonsense. Advocating for amendment, _under the rules established in the Constitution_, is in no sense arguing for mob rule. > > (I hate the idea that I have to defend Ted “Theodore” Cruz even a little in order to back up **Mace** , but whatcha gonna do.) Turning over the selection of the justices to the electorate is mob rule. Voters already get to elect Congress and President. We need one branch not subject to the whims of the (mostly idiot) voters. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/103 "2016-04-06T15:27:43Z")
Survey sez … [ding] … the empty seat on SCOTUS is a _good_ thing … look how bad their decisions are … 4-4 tie is the _best_ possible result of any case brought in. A Congress that can’t do anything is not able to restrict our rights … and that’s a good thing. Looks like an air stagnation advisory is posted, can’t burn anything, flag or otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/104 "2016-04-06T15:36:16Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Nonsense. Advocating for amendment, _under the rules established in the Constitution_, is in no sense arguing for mob rule. The \*result \*of the amendment \*would \*be. > [@](#): > > (I hate the idea that I have to defend Ted “Theodore” Cruz even a little in order to back up **Mace** , but whatcha gonna do.) You don’t have to do either. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/105 "2016-04-06T15:59:21Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Survey sez … [ding] … the empty seat on SCOTUS is a _good_ thing … look how bad their decisions are … 4-4 tie is the _best_ possible result of any case brought in. > > A Congress that can’t do anything is not able to restrict our rights … and that’s a good thing. > > Looks like an air stagnation advisory is posted, can’t burn anything, flag or otherwise. You understand that the cases are still being decided, right? If there’s a 4-4 tie, the decision of the circuit court stands. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/106 "2016-04-06T16:21:25Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You have made that assertion repeatedly, but that does not constitute correction. Your refusal to address any explanation of how you are wrong makes your assertions better suited to the Pit or IMHO than a debate. Your opinion is noted, and given all the weight it deserves. > [@](#): > > It is a reminder that there are rights not addressed in the document itself, and by implication guarantees them as well, so you’re 180 degrees wrong. No, actually I am 100% right. > [@](#): > > A number of federal courts have found that the Ninth Amendment is a rule of judicial construction, or a guideline for interpretation, and not an independent source of constitutional rights (Mann v. Meachem, 929 F. Supp. 622 [N.D.N.Y. 1996]). These courts view the Ninth Amendment as an invitation to liberally interpret the express provisions of the Constitution. However, federal courts will not recognize constitutional rights claimed to derive solely from the Ninth Amendment (United States v. Vital Health Products, 786 F. Supp. 761 [E.D. Wis. 1992]). By itself, one court held, the Ninth Amendment does not enunciate any substantive rights. Instead the amendment serves to protect other fundamental liberties that are implicit, though not mentioned, in the Bill of Rights (Rothner v. City of Chicago, 725 F. Supp. 945 [N.D. Ill. 1989]). > > After Griswold, federal courts were flooded with novel claims based on unenumerated rights. Almost without exception, these novel Ninth Amendment claims were rejected. [Cite](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ninth+Amendment). > [@](#): > > It has already been shown to you, multiple times, that marriage was never defined under the law to be opposite-sex only. I don’t see any cite such as you describe. That’s probably because there aren’t any. If you need me to cite the examples where the opposite was true, and various states either amended their constitutions or passed referenda because they did not wish to have the definition of marriage changed to be other than what it was, I suppose I could do that if I thought it would do any good. But since it won’tl, I guess I won’t bother. > [@](#): > > Say it as if you meant it. Oh, don’t worry - when I say it, it means exactly what I intend it to mean. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/107 "2016-04-06T16:28:54Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You understand that the cases are still being decided, right? If there’s a 4-4 tie, the decision of the circuit court stands. These cases are being decided in the district courts, and these decisions stand in those particular districts. I can’t imagine very many cases reaching the circuit court, far fewer still reaching the Supreme Court. A very small percentage of all cases will reach this 4-4 deadlock. Here, the circuit court decision only temporarily stands, no precedence is set and another case can be brought to the Supreme Court. My point is that these 4-4 ties come about with contentious issues, where the political solution is better than a judicial one … usually … ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/108 "2016-04-06T16:30:16Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t see any cite such as you describe. That’s probably because there aren’t any. You’re looking for a cite that nothing exists? Yes, there probably aren’t any. You cannot provide a cite in the written law that marriage was ever restricted to opposite sex couples in the US, can you? Only repeated assertions that practice and custom constitute “common law”, which for you has some mystical importance that supersede all other things. > [@](#): > > If you need me to cite the examples where the opposite was true, and various states either amended their constitutions or passed referenda because they did not wish to have the definition of marriage changed to be other than what it was, I suppose I could do that if I thought it would do any good. It would be easy if it existed. > [@](#): > > But since it won’tl, I guess I won’t bother. Go ahead, take ten seconds and see for yourself. How about just a single, quick, answer to a single, quick question: Who was prevented from marrying a person of the same race before _Loving_? The legal definition of marriage in Virginia \*was \*same-race, after all. So whose rights were infringed? ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/109 "2016-04-06T16:32:51Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Turning over the selection of the justices to the electorate is mob rule. Voters already get to elect Congress and President. > We need one branch not subject to the whims of the (mostly idiot) voters. Mob rule, AKA democracy. Is it better to be ruled by the whims of five lawyers? Didn’t we fight a [war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War) to keep unelected people in funny robes from ruling over us? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/110 "2016-04-06T16:37:33Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Mob rule, AKA democracy. Is it better to be ruled by the whims of five lawyers? Didn’t we fight a [war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War) to keep unelected people in funny robes from ruling over us? You mean the five unelected judges who ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, Citizen’s United and gave us Bush as President? Did you complain then? And the Constitution is the result of that war. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/111 "2016-04-06T16:41:47Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Is it better to be ruled by the whims of five lawyers? Sometimes, yes, we do need to be restrained. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/112 "2016-04-06T16:49:27Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > These cases are being decided in the district courts, and these decisions stand in those particular districts. I can’t imagine very many cases reaching the circuit court, far fewer still reaching the Supreme Court. A very small percentage of all cases will reach this 4-4 deadlock. Here, the circuit court decision only temporarily stands, no precedence is set and another case can be brought to the Supreme Court. Virtually all of these cases have to go through the circuit court to _reach_ SCOTUS. And the circuit decisions are binding within the circuit, so a precedent is most certainly set. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/113 "2016-04-06T17:54:03Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Which bases its order on a presumption, not actual previous citations. Baker was not cited in any opinion by either those finding for or against the results in _United States v Windsor_ making appeals to Baker awkward, at best. Your post is misleading. _Windsor_ did not concern a constitutional requirement that states allow same-sex marriage. In the case that did concern that right, _Obergefell_ (which is the case discussed in this thread), the majority addressed and expressly overruled _Baker_. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/114 "2016-04-07T01:07:20Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Virtually all of these cases have to go through the circuit court to _reach_ SCOTUS. And the circuit decisions are binding within the circuit, so a precedent is most certainly set. No … Supreme Court precedence is binding on the Circuit Court, not the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/115 "2016-04-07T01:14:12Z")
You must be misunderstanding - in the absence of SCOTUS ruling, the circuit appellate court decisions are binding on the circuit. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/116 "2016-04-07T12:15:52Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You must be misunderstanding - in the absence of SCOTUS ruling, the circuit appellate court decisions are binding on the circuit. As I said before, only until another case is brought to the Supreme Court … a 4-4 tie isn’t the final say … the final say is only delayed. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/117 "2016-04-07T13:07:13Z")
That’s nice in theory, but it could easily be another 20 years before a similar case is before the court. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/118 "2016-04-07T14:15:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s nice in theory, but it could easily be another 20 years before a similar case is before the court. Good … it took over 200 years to ratify the 27th Amendment … we’re a People who thrive on individual liberties and freedoms … government should work slowly, making sure we get it right. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/119 "2016-04-07T14:26:02Z")
You seem to have forgotten what your argument was. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2016, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083/120 "2016-04-07T15:43:55Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > As I said before, only until another case is brought to the Supreme Court … a 4-4 tie isn’t the final say … the final say is only delayed. This doesn’t even make sense. If you subscribe to this then there is never a final say. Once the appellate circuit court rules, that ruling is binding on the circuit until it is overruled at some future potentially never date. So this statement: > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Here, the circuit court decision only temporarily stands, \*\*no precedence is set \*\*and another case can be brought to the Supreme Court. This is false. Precedent is set. Temporary could be forever. Even SCOTUS decisions can be undone. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-refusal-of-garlands-nomination-dangerously-politicize-the-supreme-court/751083.md?page=7)