Guess Who Could Be Coming Back If Kamala Wins?
Man Arrested for Threatening to Assassinate Supreme Court Justices
MSNBC Confirms Kamala Is Lying from the Center, and CNN Drowns in Interview...
Is There a Mole in the Secret Service?
Why These People Were Rushed to the Hospital Following a Trump Rally
Trump Surprises Young Boy With Rare Brain Disorder With Special Present
Did We Just See the Worst Vote Against Israel From the UN?
Drug Companies Caused the Problems With 340B
One GOP Lawmaker Says It Doesn't Feel 'Safe' to Work in Politics
We Have Post-Debate Polling News Out of a Key Battleground State
Number of Interviews the Trump-Vance Ticket Has Given in Contrast to the Harris-Walz...
Democrats Are Still Running With This Narrative About Harris Becoming the Nominee
Intel and the U.S. Lose Their Bet on ESG
A Growing Number of Americans Are Getting Their News From TikTok
Hmm: Scott Jennings Raises Important Question While Discussing Exploding Pagers That Took...
Tipsheet

ICYMI: SCOTUS Issued First 4-4 Ruling Since Scalia's Death

With the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court issued its first 4-4 decision since his passing on the Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore case, which dealt with gender discrimination regarding bank loans. While the ruling reaffirms the lower court's decision, the issue at hand remains unresolved. Nevertheless, as Ed mentioned, a deadlocked court handed down a decision and the sky didn’t fall (via the Hill):

Advertisement

The court tied 4-4 in a case involving whether a pair of wives should be held financially responsible for the failure of their husbands’ real estate endeavor.

[…]

The outcome of Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore leaves in place a lower court ruling that affirmed that the bank did not discriminate against the women.

But it also means the Supreme Court did not resolve pair of conflicting lower court rulings on the matter. A decision from the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which ruled directly on this case, conflicted with a prior ruling from the 6th Circuit on a similar issue.

At question in the case is what legal protections are available to Valerie Hawkins and Janice Patterson, who were required by the bank to sign on as guarantors on a loan application submitted by their husbands. When the men's business failed to make loan payments, the bank declared the loans in default and demanded payment from all four.

As I’ve mentioned before, in the history of the Supreme Court, we’ve had instances where there wasn’t a full court present during a session. At times, we’ve had eight-member, even seven-member, courts, which had heavier workloads to contend with than today’s jurists. The point is that the judicial system didn’t collapse, and it won’t. The American people have the right to decide the next president, and therefore, the next Supreme Court nominee to fill Scalia’s vacancy. In the meantime, an eight-member court isn’t a pressing concern. It’s time for Senate Democrats to honor the Biden rule: no judicial nominations during election years.

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement