Up to 3 Supreme Court Justices Likely To Retire Next Month

ConservativeAlerts.Com ^ | ConservativeAlerts.Com

[Centurion2000]

bump ..... 3 Justices ? Let's hope they are the liberal pukes on the bench

Clarence Thomas for Chief Justice.

[demlosers]

So who are the 3 likely retiring Supreme Court justices, and how do we know this is going to happen next month?

[TomGuy]

Ahhhh....wasn't this a misquote:

As noted by Gary Bauer (cwfpac.org), "this is a bold step for Senator Frist and the GOP leadership. Senate Democrats will no doubt scream and holler about how Republicans are trashing the 'rights of the minority,' and Robert Byrd will pontificate endlessly about the prestige and traditions of the Senate being torn asunder."

I wonder if he meant:

As noted by Gary Bauer (cwfpac.org), "this is a bold step for Senator Frist and the GOP to show leadership. Senate Democrats will no doubt scream and holler about how Republicans are trashing the 'rights of the minority,' and Robert Byrd will pontificate endlessly about the prestige and traditions of the Senate being torn asunder."

Let's count the fillibusters:

Estrada
Owens
Pickering [probable]
Supreme Court nominee #1 [probable]
Supreme Court nominee #2 [probable]
Supreme Court nominee #3 [probable]

[exit82]

Bold step? No, a bold step by Frist would be locking the Dems in their wood paneled conference room where Tommy D. gives out his weekly press conferences until we get a vote. Bold would be stopping the work of the Senate until a vote takes place.

Why haven't lawyers,judges, and even Supreme Court justices spoken out about this abuse of power by the Democrats? If it were Republicans doing this, this would be front paqge hysterical news daily until the Pubs caved in. But that would only take a day or so.

[Lurking Libertarian]

So who are the 3 likely retiring Supreme Court justices, and how do we know this is going to happen next month?

If a Supreme Court justice retires, it is traditionally announced at the end of the Court's term, to give the President the chance to appoint a new justice before the new term begins. (The Court's current term ends next Monday.)

The 3 Justices most likely to retire, due to their age and health, are Rehnquist, O'Connor and Stevens.

However, retirements seem unlikely to me this year, because the Court announced an unusual September session to hear the Campaign Finance case. (The Court's term usually doesn't start till October.)

[Tacis]

I can't believe that the dems won't already pay a price in the 2004 election for their extreme partisanship in filibustering the current Bush nominees. Do they really want to give us the "obstructionist" argument as we go into the campaign? The weasels have almost no grounds for opposition. They simply know that if Bush wants the guy to be a judge, they don't. We should be able to exploit that stupidity. We should let them know that we intend to use their refusal to obey the Constitution against them in the 2004 election.

[heleny]

However, retirements seem unlikely to me this year, because the Court announced an unusual September session to hear the Campaign Finance case. (The Court's term usually doesn't start till October.)

Interesting point. If they care about the case, they should want to help decide.

Can a Justice announce his retirement but stay on the court until his successor is confirmed, or must the retiree announce when his last day will be? If 3 retire, the SC may shrink to 6 Justices for a long time, if the Senate continues its obstructionism.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Can a Justice announce his retirement but stay on the court until his successor is confirmed

There's no law against it, but it's not usually done that way. If I remeber correctly, the last Justice who tried to do that was Earl Warren, and he was roundly criticized by the Republicans for doing so.

[CyberAnt]

THIS IS NOT TRUE!!!

[So Cal Rocket]

Stevens won't retire so long as a Republican is in the White House. The only way his seat will be open is if he is "called home".

[TheCrusader]

I nominate Winnie the Pooh, the cute, lovable, fuzzy philosopher. Who would dare filibuster him?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Stevens won't retire so long as a Republican is in the White House.

Ironic, in that Stevens used to be a Republican, and was appointed to the Court by a Republican president. he was actually considered a "moderate" justice then -- and, compared to Brennan and Marshall, he was. Shows how far the Court has moved.

[RonF]

I can't believe that the dems won't already pay a price in the 2004 election for their extreme partisanship in filibustering the current Bush nominees.

Well, then, let me explain it to you. Bush has nominated, what, 125 judges? Of which 123 have gotten a vote. Leaving a grand total of 2 judges that have been filibustered. Most Americans are going to look at that and say, "Hey, he's gotten >98% of what he's wanted. What's the problem?"

I'm not advancing this because I expect you to agree with that viewpoint, or to argue it's merits or the Constitutionality of the filibusters. I'm saying that this is the attitude most Americans will take. They won't see blocking 2 of 125 judgeships as being a huge deal.

[eeman]

I can't believe that the dems won't already pay a price in the 2004 election for their extreme partisanship

If you were dealing with rational people, it is hard to believe that the Dems would not pay a price. However, less than one half hour ago, one of my colleagues told me he thought the the Bush II admisistation is the most "dangerous government in 400 years." He is a liberal and at first I thought he was saying this just to be sarcastic. However, he truly meant it. Like other hardcore democrat voters, I am sure that sees the Dems as the only thing saving civilzation from the capitalist barbarians

[discostu]

They won't filibuster 3 SCOTUS nominees. It would be suicide. If SCOTUS grinds to a hault for over a year because of Democrat filibusters the donkey party might as well disband.

Frist should do exactly what he's doing. While these filibusters have been going on we've been getting gobs of judges through. Meanwhile it's a recurring issue that hilights Dem obstructionism and will cost them seats next year. Strategy people.

[CyberCowboy777]

However, retirements seem unlikely to me this year, because the Court announced an unusual September session to hear the Campaign Finance case. (The Court's term usually doesn't start till October.)

I agree with you on this.

[Henrietta]

"But what many are NOT discussing is the fact that, as things stand now, the President won't stand a chance of actually getting ANY Supreme Court nominee through the radical Left's Senate gauntlet. "

Two words: recess appointments. Appoint Robert Bork and other true conservatives to the bench, and tell the Dims, "Hey, I proposed some moderate jurists, and you wouldn't let them sit on the bench, so we'll just have Bork sit in until you all decide to play along."

Heh, heh, heh. At least that's what I'd do.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Two words: recess appointments.

But the judges appointed would only sit for a year, not for life terms.

[Jim Noble]

No acceptable nominees will be or even could be confirmed by the present Senate.

Bush's choices are two:

1) More David Souters.

2) Let the nominations stall, let the USSC work with seven (or six) justices, and campaign like hell for a better Senate.

I think the voters are on our side on this issue.