Supreme Court Hands Down First 4-To-4 Decision Since Antonin Scalia’s Death

[Yo_Mama]

8. This is nonsense right now. For several reasons.

The first irrational aspect is that most cases aren't 4-4 and of course nothing changes then. The SC is going on hearing and deciding many cases, and in this case, the result is simply that the lower court decision stands. Even when there is a full slate of justices, occasionally one will recuse, and then we are left with the same possibility of a 4-4 split.

The second remarkably intense loss of orientation to reality in your post lies in the fact that it has been a week only since Garland's nomination was announced, and even for "clear sailing" nominees, the Senate takes much longer to act. There is no possible way another justice could have been confirmed by now.

There is a pretty formal process. The Senate Judiciary Committee interviews the candidate, votes, and makes a recommendation to the full Senate, which then votes. Before it gets to that, their staffers prepare reports and analyses. The ABA standing committee submits its own recommendation to the Judiciary Committee. They wouldn't even schedule a hearing before that:
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/federal_judiciary/resources/supreme-court-nominations.html

Before the interviews (public hearings by now), various members and staffers will talk to the nominee. I have read that several are doing so. It generally takes months for this process to complete even in relatively uncontroversial nominations.

President Obama didn't take an unreasonable length of time to select a nominee, so don't blame him either.

If we don't have action by the end of June, then I think we can start talking about the obstruction issue, although nominations have taken longer. It is bizarre to talk about it now, except as a prospective problem.