The time is now to use the nuke. This is the big one, the balance changer. Sandy is going to stay until someone is confirmed -- there won't be any 4-4 decisions. We've GOT to break up this court before they have us all in irons. We have to make this court turn 5-4 the other way.
Will the imbecile Pelosi still breathlessly announce "it's almost like the word of God?" I bet she doesn't, but don't forget she said that.
Well, that would put a different complexion on it. There is less political advantage to letting the Rats obstruct if you can't point to an empty seat. Not to mention (as however you do) the prospect of another term of bad 5-4 decisions.
But where are we getting this idea that O'Connor will stay? Someone else here has said that, but I'm not clear on the basis. Did O'Connor say so? And why then did Bush say that he needs congress to act before October?
Can you even do this legally? That is resign -- so that there is an actual vacancy to be filled, and the constitutional process can proceed -- but stay on so there isn't a vacancy in fact?
If you can, isn't it awkward, and somewhat unprofessional? You have to hold on to office space, staff and other resources, with no idea when they'll be relinquished. Or would O'Connor have to stay on for the completion of any additional term she started? Or just until any cases she'd heard where acted on? If so might there not be a certain period when the court had ten members rather than nine? Isn't the nine member limit set by statute?
Maybe this is correct, Sandy will stay, but I'm skeptical of the suggestion until I understand it's basis and how that's going to work.