It could encourage some Supreme Court justices to retire.
It would change the numbers required for the Gang of Moderates to stop the Anti-Fillibuster Nuclear Option.
It would probably affect Bush’ appointments… more minorities? Gonzalez?
What else?..you guys are alot smarter than me.
I dunno. Aren’t the Democrats who are most likely to win new seats pro-life? Ford, Casey, Webb. That’s the issue-- if you’ll vote for someone who might overturn Roe. The Dem in RI is pro-choice, but then so is Chaffe (who voted against Alito).
Why would it encourage any SC justices to retire?
Encourage isn’t the right word…what I meant to suggest as a possibility is that any liberal justice who has been trying to hold on might be a little less inclined to do so.
Why? The President still gets to appoint the justices.
The Senators have already reached an agreement not to filibuster judicial nominees except in extreme cases.
Ford’s pro-life, Casey supports birth control and the morning-after pill but is against abortion, and Webb is pro-choice. Lamont is pro-choice (taking over from Lieberman), Cardin doesn’t say (taking over from Sarbanes, who also doesn’t say), same deal for Klobuchar/Dayton. Tester is waffling*, Carter is pro-choice and pro-civil unions, McCaskill doesn’t say.
So, kind of, but not really.
*“We all share the same goal: to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies in this country. There are concrete steps we can take to achieve that goal. Jon Tester trusts the women of Montana to make their own medical decisions in consultation with her family, doctor and God. The politicians in Washington shouldn’t interfere with this very personal and difficult decision. The decision to have an abortion is a difficult one and it should remain safe, legal, and rare.”
Casey supports birth control. Damn, he’s practically a communist! 
Didn’t know that about Webb, but Lamon is taking over for Lieberman-- he’s almost certainly going to lose.
Arrrggh!! I meant “isn’t taking over for Lieberman”. I blame it on the trick or treaters.
Let’s say the senate is 51-49 Republican. I think it would take 9-10 on each side to come to the same agreement for it to have any impact. Further, some of the 14 (DeWine) could be gone.
If the Senate tightens but the Republicans retain control, it would make a filibuster of a Bush appointee much easier, and might give Bush pause before appointing more radical judges. On the whole, though, not much would change.
However, if the Democrats took control of the Senate, they’d also take control of the Judicial Committee, which would mean that instead of Arlen Specter leading the committee of 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats, Patrick Leahy (probably) would lead the committee of 11 Democrats and 10 Republicans, so Bush’s more radical appointees could get stuck in committee and never even get voted on, no matter what the composition of the Senate’s ideology. The Republican Senate Judiciary Committee used to block Clinton’s appointees all the time, never letting them come up for a vote, which resulted in Clinton appointing more moderate judges, because the less moderate ones could never make it through committee.
Control of the Senate means a lot where judicial appointments are concerned. If the Democrats take the Senate, then Bush will have headache after headache with appointees that the Committee won’t like. He’d then be forced to work with the Democrats for once.
BTW, you should all check this out.