Posted on 11/07/2002 9:49:30 AM PST by gubamyster
The Republican sweep makes a Supreme Court retirement likely in the near future.
by Terry Eastland
11/07/2002 12:00:00 AM
ONE CONSEQUENCE of the shift of Senate control to the Republicans may be to nudge a Justice or two towards retirement. It's about time we had a vacancy. The last was in 1994, when Harry Blackmun stepped down and his seat was taken by Stephen Breyer. More than eight years have passed--the second longest period without a vacancy since the early nineteenth century. So far history has blanked George W. Bush--he hasn't had a single opportunity to name a Justice. The only president ever to serve one full term and not appoint a Justice was Jimmy Carter. That's a record Bush would not like to tie.
Whether Bush has a High Court vacancy to fill is not up to him, of course. It's a matter for each Justice to decide. But there's good reason to think that the election results might move Chief Justice William Rehnquist to retire.
He's 78 and has served 30 years, seven more the average term of service for justices (as calculated by Henry Abraham, author of the indispensable "Justices and Presidents"). He's had an impressive tenure, first as a Nixon-appointed Associate Justice (and the most conservative member of the Burger Court) and then, since 1986, as Chief Justice (elevated by President Reagan). In recent years Rehnquist has seen the Court move closer to his views, especially on federalism. A notoriously fast worker, he has hobbies and interests outside his chambers. There wouldn't seem to be much to keep him on the Court, especially if--and this "if" was fulfilled by Tuesday's Senate results--his successor were nominated by a Republican president and judged by a Republican Senate.
Rehnquist, a keen student of the Court's history--and proud Republican--knows those are the circumstances most conducive to the appointment of a judicial conservative like himself. He also knows that once a presidential election year arrives, even nominations made under those circumstances can be undone. All of which is to say that Tuesday opened an attractive window of opportunity for Rehnquist that will be there through the next year. The most obvious time to step down--the one that best comports with the Court's own schedule--would be in late June of next year, when the current term ends.
"The question really is will it be one or two," a Justice Department lawyer tells me. What he means is this: Might another Justice also step down in 2003? He or she would likely be very senior (you have to say "very" given the unusual demographic here) and have served a long tenure. And be Republican.
Two Justices come to mind: Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, 81, who has served 27 years, and Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 71, now in her 22nd year. But the Nixon-appointee, Stevens, a judicial liberal, is by all accounts uninterested in the political circumstances by which his successor might be nominated and confirmed. Yet O'Connor, who long ago served in the Arizona state senate, just might be.
If there is a vacancy--or two--expect fights within the administration over who should be nominated. Also expect opposition by liberals to whoever is nominated. But with the Senate controlled by Republicans, the President almost surely will prevail. In retrospect, we'll see that the Supreme Court was also what Tuesday was about.
Terry Eastland is publisher of The Weekly Standard.
Yes, that has been speculated.
51...but the dems could attempt a fillibuster.
Maybe his wife can feed him bacon, as Julianne Malveaux might suggest.
I am afraid you are right. Orin claims that Ted Kennedy is
his best friend. Strange bedfellows.
I would hope that Senator Fred Thompson(retired) might be considered.
too old
Any Justice concerned about his/her age and infirmities (it was appropriate that Eastland did not mention the bouts with cancer that some Justices have had), should pick June, 2003, as the time to hang up his/her robe.
They should not, and perhaps physically can not, wait until after the presidential election of 2004 before resigning. I think the conclusion of the article, which is based on clear analysis and not inside information, is correct. I also conclude that at least two Justices will retire in June.
Notice I say, "at least." For liberal Justices like Ginsberg the equation is reversed. There is no good time for them to retire. Are they going to wait until 2009 after a Democrat President has been sworn in, to retire? Can they make it that long, even if they want to for ideological reasons?
And I also agree with the final line of the article. With my interests and prejudices, I have long thought the most important and lasting factor about the election of Presidents and Senators is their 30-year (on average) effect on the appointment of judges and Justices who serve for life, per the Constitution. November 7, 2002, was an historic day for the quality and direction of federal jurisprudence. Because I am an unreconstructed Constitution-hound, I an very pleased by that result.
Congressman Billybob
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.