[ColoradoTree]

Perhaps this is mostly interesting to lawyers like me, but the strategic decisions Chief Justice Roberts has to make now are fascinating.  Where a case was previously argued, decided 5-4 in conference, but now lacks a majority due to Justice Scalia's death, does he allow the case to be decided on a tie (in 4-4 splits, the lower court opinion is affirmed, but without any precedential impact outside that circuit) or hold it over for reargument when Scalia's successor is confirmed, potentially risking that the new lineup will decide the case the other way?  I suppose it depends on the Chief's prediction for who wins the Presidential election, as well as on the issue being decided.  If you're in the Chief's shoes and you anticipate the new Justice moving the Court to the left, you might want to just take the loss on a bad (in your view) Ninth Circuit opinion in order to avoid a decision on that issue becoming the law of the land, and preserving the chance that by the next time the issue came up, the Court would once again be more conservative.  Anyway, an interesting set of choices.

[ColoradoTree]

Perhaps this is mostly interesting to lawyers like me, but the strategic decisions Chief Justice Roberts has to make now are fascinating.  Where a case was previously argued, decided 5-4 in conference, but now lacks a majority due to Justice Scalia's death, does he allow the case to be decided on a tie (in 4-4 splits, the lower court opinion is affirmed, but without any precedential impact outside that circuit) or hold it over for reargument when Scalia's successor is confirmed, potentially risking that the new lineup will decide the case the other way?  I suppose it depends on the Chief's prediction for who wins the Presidential election, as well as on the issue being decided.  If you're in the Chief's shoes and you anticipate the new Justice moving the Court to the left, you might want to just take the loss on a bad (in your view) Ninth Circuit opinion in order to avoid a decision on that issue becoming the law of the land, and preserving the chance that by the next time the issue came up, the Court would once again be more conservative.  Anyway, an interesting set of choices.