Bush made a proposal for the Senate to change its rules. Retiring judges are to announce retirements a year before retiring. The president then would have to appoint a judge to replace them with in 6 months of retirement. The Senate would be required to vote 6 months after the president made the appointment or the appointment takes place. The chances of a Democratic Senate passing that bill are slim and none.
If the Democrats hold the Senate, Bush will not appoint anyone. The Democrats think the only choice Bush has is to keep nominating people until the Senate Democrats forc him to nominate the liberals they want. The Democrats think the choice is reject Judge Bork and get Judge Kennedy. Bush has a proposal to change the law. Until they vote on his current judges or adopt his law, why should Bush appoint any judges at all. If the Democrats won't vote on them, why should he appoint them before 2005 when the Repubicans take the senate for sure. All Bush would be hurting is trial lawyers.
Look for Bush to appoint zero judges (None Nada Zip) until the Senate votes up or down on all the judges they now have before them. They can't even trash his selections if he doesn't slect any. And they can't demand he appoint judges if they won't vote on them.
It is the trial lawyers that will go on welfare if they can't bring suit against Philip Morris for makeing butts or McDonalds for making hamburgers.