Once I found fairly clear evidence that the retirement dates were dates certain, I stopped looking. I believe that O'Connor is the first Justice to deviate from the time-honored practice of providing a date-certain for retirement.
Can you imagine doing that at a place of employment? Resign, timing contingent on your replacement being hired? It puts the boss-man in an awkward position.
I agree.
That first day, as soon as I heard that is what she did, I raised my eyebrows in surprise, but wasn't really sure whether that was some type of general practice for the USSC retirements.
Now, I'm pretty sure that it has not been.
This is a dangerous way to operate, I'm afraid. As you point out, it makes it tougher to get serious about finding a replacement. That, in addition to my point about "Suppose O'Conner decided she didn't like the person confirmed (or about to be confirmed) and withdrew her retirement" scenerio - this really seems like asking for trouble down the road.
If that occurred, what would be the alternative? Impeach the justice? Supposing something like a 55-45 vote on the replacement, there are 45 primed to vote against impeachment - it would be a real pickle, I think, especially if a majority of the USSC justices were to agree with the rogue.
"I do not like this, not one little bit."