Alec Baldwin's Encounter With a Pro-Palestinian Activist Is a Warning to All
Senators Deliver Message to Biden on Schools Allowing 'Pro-Terrorist Mobs'
Here's How Sarah Huckabee Sanders Is Welcoming Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to Arkan...
Judge Clashes With Trump Attorney at Gag Order Hearing
Here's Who Trump Is Blaming for the Pro-Hamas Student Protests
Harvard Takes Action Against Pro-Hamas Student Group
Trump Comes to Johnson's Defense
Did Kristi Noem Complicate Her Chances for VP With This Sunday Show Abortion...
Biden's Crime Proclamation Sure Is Something
It's Been a Year Since the House Passed Rep. Greg Steube's Bill to...
Here's What Happened When a New York Homeowner Found Squatters on Her Property
Following Anti-Israel Protests, Columbia Switches to Hybrid Classes for the Rest of the...
Some of the Illegal Aliens DeSantis Sent to Martha’s Vineyard Will Be Permitted...
Biden’s ‘Ghost Gun’ Crackdowns Head to the Supreme Court
NBC's New 2024 Poll Is Mostly Good News for Trump, But...
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