Posted on 09/29/2004 11:52:02 AM PDT by swilhelm73
Supreme Court Vacancies: A fellow blogger emailed me recently to ask--as an avid Supreme Court watcher--how many vacancies I expected might occur during the next presidential term. Specifically, he asked about the average age of retirement for Supreme Court justices in the modern era. Having not seen any analysis on the topic, I decided to do a little research. Here's what I found (with a little help from the good folks at Oyez):
Justice Stephen G. Breyer (now age 66) succeeded Justice Harry A. Blackmun, who retired at the age of 85.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (now age 71) succeeded Justice Byron R. White, who retired at the age of 76.
Justice Clarence Thomas(now age 56) succeeded Justice Thurgood Marshall, who retired at the age of 83.
Justice David H. Souter (now age 65) succeeded Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who retired at the age of 84.
Justice Anthony Kennedy (now age 68) succeeded Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., who retired at the age of 79.
Justice Antonin Scalia (now age 68) succeeded Justice Rehnquist who was elevated to chief justice after the retirement of Chief Justice Warren E. Burger at the age of 79.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (now age 74) succeeded Justice Potter Stewart, who retired at the age of 66.
Justice John Paul Stevens (now age 84) succeeded Justice William O. Douglas, who retired at the age of 77.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (who will be 80 on October 1st) succeeded Justice John M. Harlan, who retired at the age of 72.
The average age of the nine justices who preceded those comprising the current Court is 77.8 (and if I am off by a little, cut me some freakin' slack. I am lawyer, you know.).
Whew! O.k., now I realize this is not an exact science (and that the average lifespan continues to rise as modern science and medicine progresses), but if we only look at the foregoing numbers, the following justices are nearing or will be near retirement age during the next presidential term (2004 to 2008):
Ginsburg - 71 (especially given her past health problems--I, of course, pray she is not forced to retire for such reasons)
Rehnquist-80
O'Connor-74 (she too has unfortunately had her share of health problems)
Stevens-84
If I were a betting man, I would put my money on Kerry or Bush filling at least two slots should either win the presidency in the fall. It's no secret that Rehnquist and O'Connor would like to be replaced during a Republican presidency, and I suspect the converse is true for Ginsburg and Stevens. Thus, regardless of who wins this fall, my guess is that two vacancies will most certainly occur in the next presidential term, and a third seems likely for Bush should he win.
I don't know the status of Justice Stevens's health (and I certainly hope he is doing well), but I would be surprised if he was interested in staying on the Court until the fall of 2008 (in hope that a dem might be elected president). And while Justice Ginsburg is relatively young, her past health problems are well documented. In other words, it is not outside the realm of reason to envision one of the two nearing-retirement liberals on the Court leaving during a second Bush term.
The same might be said of Rehnquist and O'Connor if Kerry somehow wins, but something tells me that both would try their best to hang on as long as possible given the current composition of the Court. All of this, of course, is just speculation on my part; but I think Bush has a slightly better chance of picking up a third vacancy than Kerry does.
All of that having been said, I predict that whoever wins the presidency will most likely fill two Supreme Court vacancies during the next four years.
And make no mistake, the battles to fill these slots will be nastier than anything we've seen to date. Indeed, we may just see RECESS APPOINTMENTS to the Supreme Court. Wouldn't that be delightful?
BTW, for you non-Court Watchers out there, there are currently only three justices who are willing to overrule Roe (Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas). Therefore, even if Bush replaces Rehnquist with an anti-Roe justice, the Court composition on that issue is likely to remain the same, and we will need two other anti-Roe justices to sweep that piece of jurisprudential trash into the dustbin of history.
Now, as for who might fill any vacancy . . . Well, that's an entirely different post.
posted at 2:15 PM by Steve (aka "Feddie") |
Huh? I'm not a lawyer.
The solution is to only appoint those who will interpret the Constitution as it was intended to be understood, aka strict constructionists.
Bush has claimed he will appoint strict constructionists. Now, can he get them by the Senate? That depends alot on how many Rep Senators we give him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.