4-4 Decision in Supreme court.

[swifty]

Yes.  The article I read should confirm everything you say.  4-4 tie = Lower court's decision is upheld.  It can, however, be appealed again until a new justice is appointed.

Now that brings up an interesting point.  What happens when a justice recuses himself? (which is`why we get the majority of the even decisions) 

Doesn't make sense to believe the court would think any differently, even if argued differenly I.E, another err was made by the lower court.  You could also lose all rights to the special appeal once all 9 judges are seated.  The recused judge most likely will not hear it on different grounds (another mistake in the App. Court.)

Still can't find any rule of law to refer to.  Closest I got was that the Congress decides how many justices there are, they started  with six, Over the years, congress has changed this to 9.  This has to be in the US CODE sections, why I can't find it is beyond me. 

The article I referred to doesn't directly say that, but hints at it.  Here's part of it

"The fact that a decision was affirmed by an equally divided Supreme Court is not an independent ground for granting a rehearing. However, rehearings have been granted in situations where the Supreme Court had affirmed judgments by equally divided courts, but soon thereafter a new justice was appointed, who could break the tie on rehearing."

[ptlaw]

The U.S. Supreme Court has nine members.  They used to be called "The Nine Old Men" until Justice O'Connor joined the court.  I guess now they are the "Seven Old Men and Two Ladies".

ptlaw

[jeffjoe]

There may not be a rule.  A tie means that the court cannot reach a decision (no majority).  The lower court is affirmed by default.

On the other hand, there may be a SC rule somewhere.  I haven't found them, yet.

As to the number of justices, FDR tried to 'pack' the court by adding a number of justices.  I think he tried to go up to 12.

[ptlaw]

The Court has had as many as ten justices (including the Chief Justice).  Its current membership was set at nine in 1869.

FDR got mad because The Court kept voting against his New Deal legislation, so he hatched a scheme to add six more justices to The Court in the hopes of engineering a majority in his favor.  His plan didn't work.  I think he got the last laugh, since whenever he got the opportunity, he picked the youngest men he could find to appoint to The Court.  William Douglas was his last appointee to "retire" in 1975.  The sad thing about Justice Douglas is that due to his health, his mental capacity had diminished a great deal prior to his retirement.   He was a brilliant legal scholar when he was at the top of his game.

Yeah, I admit it.  I am way too interested in Court trivia.  Did you know that there was a justice who went back to law school for a refresher course after his appointment?  He was afraid that he did not know enough law to serve on The Court.

ptlaw

The U.S. Supreme Court has nine members. They used to be called "The Nine Old Men" until Justice O'Connor joined the court. I guess now they are the "Seven Old Men and Two Ladies".

ptlaw

[jeffjoe]

Coming soon from ptlaw, USSC Trivia Game.   

[Dicta]

Speaking of Supreme Court trivia, anybody (ptlaw) know any "LIGHT" reading on the subject?
Susan

[ptlaw]

www.oyez.org/oyez/frontpage

Almost everything you could want to know about the U.S. Supreme Court.

ptlaw

[Dicta]

Yippee! Something else to distract me from studying! Thanks PT.
Susan

[swifty]

The U.S. Supreme Court has nine members.  They used to be called "The Nine Old Men" until Justice O'Connor joined the court.  I guess now they are the "Seven Old Men and Two Ladies".

ptlaw

And this is helpful because......?

[swifty]

There may not be a rule.  A tie means that the court cannot reach a decision (no majority).  The lower court is affirmed by default.

On the other hand, there may be a SC rule somewhere.  I haven't found them, yet.

As to the number of justices, FDR tried to 'pack' the court by adding a number of justices.  I think he tried to go up to 12.

There is a rule of law to cite or I wouldn't have been asked to do so.  I think the prof
knew this was going to be tough, and I thought it was easy    If I can cite what the freaking oath required by judges to sit on the supreme court is, and other issues such as recusing, then I have to be able to cite a 4-4 decision, and the rule of law.

Argggh 

28 USCS § 453 (2004)

§ 453.  Oaths of justices and judges

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: "I, ------, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ------ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

HISTORY:
   (June 25, 1948, ch 646, § 1, 62 Stat. 907; Dec. 1, 1990, P.L. 101-650, Title IV, Subtitle I, § 404, 104 Stat. 5124.)

HISTORY; ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES

Prior law and revision:
   Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 241, 372, and District of Columbia Code, 1940 ed., §§ 11-203, 11-303 (R.S.D.C., § 752, 18 Stat. pt. II, 90; Feb. 9, 1893, ch. 74, § 3, 27 Stat. 435; Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 854, § 223, 31 Stat. 1224; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 136, 137, 257, 36 Stat. 1135, 1161; Feb. 25, 1919, ch. 29, § 4, 40 Stat. 1157).
   This section consolidates sections 11-203 and 11-303 of District of Columbia Code, 1940 ed., and section 372 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with that portion of section 241 of said title 28 providing that judges of the Court of Claims shall take an oath of office. The remainder of said section 241 comprises sections 171 and 173 of this title.
   The phrase "justice or judge of the United States" was substituted for "justices of the Supreme Court, the circuit judges, and the district judges" appearing in said section 372, in order to extend the provisions of this section to judges of the Court of Claims, Customs Court, and Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and to all judges of any court which may be created by enactment of Congress. See definition in section 451 of this title.
   The Attorney General has ruled that the expression "any judge of any court of the United States" applied to the Chief Justice and all judges of the Court of Claims. (21 Op. Atty. Gen. 449.)
 
Amendments:
   1990. Act Dec. 1, 1990 (effective 90 days after enactment as provided by § 407 of such Act, which appears as 28 USCS § 332 note), substituted "under" for "according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to".