The Register's editorial

Ties are unsatisfying, even un-American. Nothing against sports like soccer and rugby, but most U.S. sports fans prefer contests in which draws rarely if ever happen. We want a winner.

Americans might need to get used to deadlocks, thanks to Sen. Chuck Grassley. The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee seems just fine with stalemate.

The U.S. Supreme Court has tied twice since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and likely will see more. In the most recent case, a 4-4 decision spelled a victory for public employee unions. A group of teachers and conservative groups had challenged the California Teachers Association’s ability to collect fees from employees who had declined to join the union.

After oral arguments Jan. 11, the court seemed ready to say such fees violated the First Amendment. That is, until Scalia died Feb. 13. Without him, the court tied, upholding an appeals court decision that upheld the fee collections.

Monday's unanimous ruling in a voting rights case may prove unusual. Other cases this term — on such critical issues as abortion and immigration — are expected to end in a 4-4 tie, according to analyses by the New York Times and USA Today.

The court appeared headed for another tie in a case pitting religious liberties against contraceptive coverage mandates, but justices asked attorneys in the case to submit new briefs in an effort to find a compromise.

In some cases, ties will favor conservatives, and in others, the Obama administration. But the legal questions will remain muddled. The rulings will not set precedent and will remain limited in scope, leaving important legal conflicts unresolved until a similar case comes up.

The Supreme Court will continue to function, but not to its full effectiveness as a third branch of government. There are already signs that the pace of rulings has slowed in the last two months.

How long should the nation’s highest court be weakened, and in some situations, effectively neutered? For more than a year, according to Grassley and other Republicans.

Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has argued that the appointment should be delayed until a new president is sworn in 2017 — even if Democrat Hillary Clinton wins in November.

He calls it a waste of time to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee for the court, Merrick Garland. Even though few disagree that Garland's resume is superb. Grassley even said so in 1997, when the Senate was considering Garland for an appeals court nomination: “He seems to be well-qualified. He would probably make a good judge in some other court … where the seat needs to be filled."

Senator, this seat needs to be filled, regardless of whether the presidency and your own seat is up for grabs in November.

We have admired Grassley’s principled stands on issues in his 35-year tenure as U.S. senator. In most cases, these stands have ensured government works more effectively and efficiently for his constituents and taxpayers.

But refusing to hold hearings on Garland is pure partisanship — and simple stubbornness.

Grassley won’t give Garland a chance, to even let him in the game.

That’s unsatisfying. And un-American.