Now that the SCOTUS term is over, there's speculation in DC that Justice O'Connor may step down -- as early as today.

Supposedly she has wanted to go out on a high note -- and being on the majority side of major decisions on affirmative action and gay rights may be just that.

There are also rumors about Chief Justice Rehnquist's plans for the future.

I'll bet no one will leave this year as the appointment would be dragged into the next election. I think any justice would look at the mess surrounding the current appointments to the lower courts and would put the court above their personal interest....just my opinion

Now the second victory of the day as far as I am concerned will be that no judge decides to step down. I don't want Shrub to appoint any of his idealogical appointees!!!

Justices DO try to avoid retiring during a presidential election year, so if one is going to do so, he/she would either do it now or in 2005. Furthermore, Justices traditionally try to retire during an administration of the same party from which they were originally appointed.

BTW, current Senate rules, agreed to by both Dems and Repubs years ago, state that no filibuster is to take place on a Supreme Court nominee, and that said nominees would go to the Senate floor for a vote, regardless of the committee vote as well. Furthermore, these no filibuster rules for Supreme Court nominations can only be changed by a vote of the Senate Rules Committee.

If no Justice retires this term, I wouldn't expect one to do so until the term ending two years from now.

Where do you get your information on this? I have read that a Democratic filibuster would be likely on an offensive S.C. nominee.

[ June 26, 2003, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: shawnq ]

Well, O'Connor doesn't appear to be stepping down. I think it's time for Rehnquist to go, though. W. can elevate one of his two favorite justices, Scalia or the utter horrorshow Thomas, and try to ram through some fanatic or other who would provide a tighter right-wing bloc. Albert Gonzales, the White House counsel, strikes me as being closer in jurisprudential vision to O'Connor than Kennedy; a conservative who will at times step outside that box to look at the larger picture. Still, I'd rather that W had no chance to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court. Leave that to the next Democrat. Someone along the Souter-Ginsberg lines would be perfect. Another, younger version of Stevens is way too much to ask for, though one can only dream.

Shawn,

The rules on no filibusters for Supreme Court nominees were adopted many years ago. I'm sure a search of congressional records could bring up the exact details on it for you. Of course, this doesn't mean things can't change again.

As he was closing the SC session yesterday, Rehnquist said the "Court acknowledges the retirement of......," paused, then named the librarian (such a card, that one). Most folks think it's unlikely he would have joked if there was indeed a retirement forthcoming. So, as someone else noted, it seems this Court will remain intact for at least two more sessions - barring, of course, an unanticipated health issue.

If Rehnquist steps down anytime during W's tenure, I'd like the conservative Republicans here to say if they would actively oppose Scalia's elevation to Chief, given his vile dissent ("the homosexual agenda") in yesterday's decision.

And remember, he's the justice Bush has said iis closest to his philosophy.

The reality is that due to the split in the Senate and the current divide that exists in the elctorate (notwithstanding the irrelevant poll numbers)I don't think W wants to get embroiled in a confirmation fight. On the other hand, he may want the opportunity to nominate a hispanic in order to shore up his position with the South Florida Cuban Americans and appeal to some of the growing hispanic populations in the West.

Should be interesting.

Good ol' Pat Robertson is at it again. This time he's launched a prayer vigil to overturn the gay sex ruling and is hoping that god will intervene and persuade several of the justices to retire. He targets three justices in particular.

Robertson: "One justice is 83-years-old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?"

I dunno Pat, wouldn't it be quicker just to have god call them home? Or maybe god will give Pat the finger and persuade Scalia and Rehnquist to step down. One never knows wink

"Judging from the descriptions, Robertson was referring to Justice John Paul Stevens, who was born in 1920, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had colon cancer surgery in 1999. The identity of the third justice was unclear"

Link to article.

Now even that may be too much for us to hope for....but we can still dream, can't we?

Maybe pat should just pay a personal visit to God, but lets not tell him once he leaves, he cant come back.

Personally I wish that Pat Robertson would exort his followers to pray for the Eagles to win a Super Bowl in my lifetime -- now that would make me born again!

Robertson was on Today this morning, trying to argue for this prayer vigil. I didn't hear the whole interview, but thought Katie was far too soft on him - isn't this coming pretty close to praying for their deaths? I mean, focusing on those Justices with health problems implies those health problems should be the reason for their removal from the Court.

Actually, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe said that two Supreme Court justices were going to retire, even though reports of such retirements were not confirmed and were doubted by many people. McAuliffe obviously misled the American people in a dishonest attempt to drum up support for his campaign against President Bush. How many people supported the DNC thanks to McAuliffe's claim? How many of those people might not have supported the DNC had they known that no Supreme Court retirements were imminent? McAuliffe has deliberately misled the American people...

DNC Inaccurately Claimed Justices Were Going To Retire

William, please - there has been speculation for months that at least one, if not two, Supreme Court Justices were planning to retire (and the link you provided quoted Time.com for the story). And McAuliffe tends to speak to "activists" as he was here, which is like preaching to the choir.

Certainly he is not advocating calling on the Highest Power in the Universe to get Renquist, Scalia and Thomas to retire. What Robertson is doing is petty, sad and pathetic.

[quote]CPT_Doom:
[QUOTE] (and the link you provided quoted Time.com for the story). [/quote]Much like Bush's SOTU speech said British intelligence has found yada-yada-yada, but the Dems took that out for their attack ad? But you are correct, Capt. Citing a report of something that proves potentially inaccurate doesn't amount to lying. If all the people who hate President Bush could understand that, they'd see how idiotic they look.

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart:

"Operation Supreme Court Freedom a 21 day prayer offensive where viewers will pray to God that he will 'Move in his way against three Supreme Court Justices.' The Court's recent 6-3 ruling decriminalized sodomy. An outcome leaving Pat Robertson no choice but to beseech the guy upstairs. Seriously, upstairs from Robertson lives a gay guy. He has sex constantly, and it's kind of loud.

Now six judges voted to protect private sexual conduct but Robertson has only targeted three. If God knew what they did, then you may be wondering where God was when the Supreme Court rendered its ruling to decriminalizing sodomy.

Well we put our theologians on it, and it turns out God was busy fulfilling Dayton, Ohio 16-year-old Elliot Collan's prayer for a Nintendo Game Cube. So congratulations, Elliot! Your new toy turned America queer"

[ July 18, 2003, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

I thought Katie kicked butt in the interview. She was clearly not on Robertson's side, while trying to maintain some professionalism. She questioned why he was targeting specific judges, and questioned how Robertson could equate the ruling to incest. She pointed out that NO state is considering the de-criminalization of incest.
Plus, she interviewed a Harvard Law professor after Robertson and concluded that interview with something to the effect of 'its nice to have an intelligent conversation with someone.'

On today's Today Show, they had Jon Stewart on the show who had no problem calling Robertson on the real meaning of 'retire.' He said something to the effect of "nice euphamism." And that Robertson is teaching all the kids of America that when someone disagrees with you, just ask God to kill them.