The Bulletin (Conn.), May 20:

In February, after the death of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, we editorialized on the Senate’s constitutional obligation to offer “advice and consent” in the process of nominating and confirming a replacement. We noted that Republicans’ outright refusal to do so shirks that duty, in so doing rendering the court ideologically deadlocked and therefore impotent.

This week, we witnessed probably the most compelling evidence so far that the court is broken without a ninth member, a swing vote in cases that leave justices divided along ideological lines.

In the conclusion of Zubik v. Burwell, issued Monday, the high court didn’t reach a firm decision; it simply kicked the highly charged issue of contraceptive coverage back to the lower courts, instructing them to consider whether a compromise between Catholic dogma and the Affordable Care Act mandate was possible.

At issue is the Obamacare requirement that all employers – including religious groups with faith-based convictions that birth control is sinful – offer female employees contraception coverage. At the center of the case was an accommodation offered to religious groups, allowing them to avoid paying for the coverage while providing notice of their objection and desire for an exemption, which would allow insurers or the government the cover the costs.

This was not enough for some religious groups, as clear a signal as any that they desire not compromise or significant accommodation but to remove the contraception requirement from the law altogether.

This leaves the Catholic groups and the government fundamentally at odds: The Obama administration will not and should not cave on its stipulation on birth control coverage, and religious organizations consider merely providing notice of their objection an infringement of their religious freedom.

This is exactly the sort of high-stakes controversy the high court is capable of putting to rest.

Likewise, in March, the court deadlocked in a case that challenged labor unions’ longstanding practice of charging nonmember workers fees to cover the cost of collective bargaining. In the tie, the lower appellate court’s ruling stood.

There is precedent for opposition Senates delaying or blocking Supreme Court nominees. All the same, the practical outcome is clear: The court, down a member, cannot serve its purpose when it comes to ideologically sticky issues.