The Democrats are afraid, rightly so, of having a knock-down, drag-out fight against a woman nominee, within a year of a national election in which deceiving a maximum number of women to vote for them is absolutely essential for them. Therefore, there will be no huge fight on THIS nomination. (And the Court will improve by half a Justice -- the half of the time that O'Connor savaged, rather than obeying, the Constitution.)
It is the next nomination on which there MUST be a huge fight. That one WILL change the balance of the Court, for as long as that new Justice shall live, to borrow a phrase. The Democrats will fire all guns and commit all troops to that battle.
Take your hypothesis. Say Justice Stevens chokes on his egg nog and doesn't make it to the New Year. Don't you think that Bush and his advisors have looked at that possibility? Here's how it might play out, if it happens way before the next election:
Bush nominates a staunch conservative, and says he expects that the Senate will fulfill its duty, and conduct an up-down vote on the floor. The nominee would probably win a floor vote, if held. Don't forget that there are two Senator Nelsons, both Democrats, who are up for election on 2006 and who come from mostly conservative states where a vote against a judge "who will obey the law rather than rewrite the law" might cost them their seats.
Let's suppose that Spector turns weasel (again) or the Democrats manage to conduct a filibuster and prevent a vote. What does Bush do? He condemns the Senate for failing to do its duty, demands an up-down vote, and does nothing else. No withdrawal of the nominee, no naming of a new nominee.
The Court will then have only eight Justices. But it has functioned before, at times, with less than nine. And the important thing is that a LIBERAL Justice will be gone from the Court. The Republicans will smile, make that an issue in the 2006 election. Meantime, the ability of the Court to make bad, 5-4 decisions, will be gone.
None of what I've just describes would be possible from a stalemate over the O'Connor replacement. They will be possible if, as you say, Stevens keels over after Christmas. Like I say, this President is playing chess while his opponents are playing checkers.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column: "Hillary Knew, David Knew, Only the Post Reporter Was in the Dark"
Hehe.
Stevens and Ginsberg will not retire while Bush is in office, for the obvious reasons of succession. So I guess this is the start of a death watch.
Excellent point! As opposed to now, when the Dems can delay as long as they want since O'Connor offered to stay until her replacement is confirmed.
Sir, thank you so much for taking the time to give me your reasoned, thoughtful, and very smart, response. It adds another level of much appreciated perspective.
I wish you...Safe Travel.