http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...,2671000.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines According to this article, Rehnquist and possibly O'Connor will retire this summer, which is unfortunate because I have a theory that the Supreme Court is the only possible way for man to achieve immortality. Expect both to die shortly. Some conservatives are pushing for Clarence Thomas to be Chief Justice. Can you believe it?
Scalia is the next Chief Justice, provided that this happens while Bush Jr. is still in office. Clarence Thomas as Chief Justice is the jurist's equivalent of Carrot Top receiving a lifetime achievement Oscar. Although I disagree with many of her rulings, O'Connor has been an asset to the Court. At least she is a real jurist, not a politician. Rehnquist hasn't written a worthwhile opinion in a few years as he's passed the baton to Scalia already. Meanwhile, expect 83-year-old Stevens to resign about three years after he's dead.
I doubt it. I don't think the Bushies want to bring Gore v. Bush back as an issue so close to the 2004 election. And believe me, nominating Scalia will give all of the Dems running for president a chance to dissect his, uh, reasoning on that case.
I agree but I fear this very much. Scalia is THE prototype for framing the argument whether the Senate should confirm based on ideology or qualifications (or bald politics, but that's another story). His ideology is scary, but it's hard to argue that he's not a brilliant and able justice. Thomas, on the other hand, is a boob, and his nomination would be a joke.
If you disagree, you need to tell me who among the remaining seven could get nominated. Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg -- all too liberal. Thomas -- nowhere near distinguished enough in his arguments or opinions. That leaves us Scalia and Kennedy. Disagree with his opinions, but Scalia is the more intelligent jurist and the one who is better-aligned with the goals of the Bush Administration. Kennedy wouldn't be a bad choice, but Scalia is the more obvious one.
Both Warren Burger and Earl Warren were nominated as Chief Justices without having previously served on the Court. Just because Rehnquist started out as an Associate Justice does not mean a new Chief would necessarily come from within the ranks of the Brethren. Don't rule out that whole other universe. . .
Is now a good time to cheap-shot the Greens who thought there was no difference between Bush and Gore?
People complain about Bush's honesty, but Nader's BIG LIE was one of the most destructive in US history.
You think that the Dems arbitrary holding up of a Chief Justice nomination will play well during a Presidential election? On what basis - he's already on the bloody Court. You think that the Dems trotting out the court results of Bush v. Gore will help them in 2004? C'mon Dave. I'm voting anti-Bush too, but you have no concept of a good election issue if you think these scenarios cut well for the Democrats. Whining about the past isn't exactly a good public face for the Democratic party.
I think the point was that the reasoning the Justice used in deciding the Bush v. Gore case would be examined incessantly in the confirmation hearings. This analysis would have the side effect of bringing up a controversial moment for the incumbent and indirectly questioning the legitimacy of his administration. Gephardt/Kerrey/Edwards/Whoever would not campaign on the issue, but would get mileage from it. At least I think that's what we're talking about. It's a valid point that keeping a Justice from becoming a Chief Justice might look like stall tactics, but if Bush nominates Thomas, It'd be worth just about anything to promote a 6-year fillibuster.