Choosing not to hear a case is still a ruling - its simply an agreement with an existing ruling - period.
Well, their reasons for not hearing a case are not supposed to be whether they agree with the previous ruling or not. It's supposed to be an objective decision on whether the issue can be resolved with the Constitution.
SCOTUS will often choose not to hear a case because they know they will need to make a ruling they don't want to make and they wait until a better case comes along.
Example: A lower court rules that a state cannot outlaw the manufacture of widgets and the ruling is appealed to SCOTUS. Most of the members on the bench think it is wrong for states to outlaw the manufacture of widgets, but this particular case is either presented poorly or does not fit the narrow guidelines allowing them to overturn the lower court's ruling, so they decline to hear it knowing that in a few years a better example will probably come along to allow them to make the decision they want.
So a refusal to hear a case can be a delay, too, not just a de facto upholding of the lower court decision.
Another nice game that can be played is by the chief justice - if he knows he is one of two or three disenters on a particular case, he'll often vote with the winning side so he can author the decision which gives him the ability to narrowly taylor the decision to that specific case rather than set a precedent everyone else will need to follow.
__________________
This will probably go a lot quicker if you just recognize that you are wrong and I am right.
SCOTUS will often choose not to hear a case because they know they will need to make a ruling they don't want to make and they wait until a better case comes along.
Unfortunately for Scotus members like Ginsburg, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter - they view their positions not as "defenders of the document", rather they are more akin to the ACLU which takes on cases they deem as "socially significant".
And when Rehnquist is out you know another fence rider or worse is going to get nominated.
How, exactly, is that different from Scalia and Thomas? They all work the same way - you just don't like the fact that a few recent decisions have gone toward the left. I bet you wouldn't be saying the same thing if they chose not to hear an appeal by the prosecution in these ridiculous gun manufacturer trials.
As far as "fence riders" go, that is probably the single most confusing term I hear thrown around in political debate. Are fence riders offensive to you because they sometimes disagree, or because they weigh each individual situation on its own merits and refuse to vote blindly based on a party line?
__________________
This will probably go a lot quicker if you just recognize that you are wrong and I am right.
[Deleted]
