80-year-old Chief Justice William Rehnquist has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/25/rehnquist/index.html
Apparently this is one of the more treatable forms of cancer. But is there a possibility this election will get thrown into the Supreme Court at a time when only eight justices are available? And what if there’s a 4-4 split?
Presidential election? Rehnquist will vote, cancer or no cancer.
What Tigers2B1 said. If the SCOTUS has to be involved in the Presidential election again this year, he will participate no matter what.
Damn straight. if it comes down to that he’ll go up there in an oxygen tent and vote.
But it may galvanize some people on both sides to vote based on the Supreme Court appointment powers of the Presidency.
If Kerry wins, will Rehnquist resign and give Bush the chance to make a “midnight appointment” before his term expires in January?
So what happens if he drops dead (or one of the others do) tomorrow. Bush could nominate a new justice but if he becomes a lame duck in a week any nomination could be held up until January. Would he just not bother to nominate anyone?
There is absolutely NO chance that happens. Even if it did it would get held up in committee (or filibuster) until Kerry takes office and then the new President would simply ‘withdraw’ the nomination.
I’d hate to be that poor guy who was nominated.
I’m hearing reports that he had a tracheotomy. But I’m also hearing that he’ll be back to work by the next session on 11/2 (presumably in case he needs to settle another election).
I’ve had thyroid cancer. If they indeed had to poke a hole in his trachea, one must assume that he has one of the more invasive forms of the disease, and his prognosis is not so great. If news reports are wrong, and they only performed a thyroidectomy, he’ll go on his merry way.
This will help mobilize both liberal and conservative bases. If Chief Justice Rehnquist steps down and Bush wins, we replace a conservative with a conservative. If Kerry wins, we replace a conservative with a liberal. My best wishes are with Rehnquist, but this liberal sees this as win or tie situation regarding the SCOTUS
Well, unless something bizarre happens with the Senate I’d say it’s more likely that, no matter who wins, we replace a conservative with a moderate. Whether it’s right-moderate or left-moderate will hang on the winner. But an extremist on either side is likely to get filibustered until doomsday.
So what are the likely effects? Is this likely to galvanize one side more than the other?
Dealing just with BrainGlutton’s questions here, IMO the controversy over Bush v. Gore is going to make them very reluctant to resolve another election dispute. Except for the truly odd circumstance of 1876, 2000 was the first time that SCOTUS had stepped in w/r/t the Presidential election.
As for a 4-4 split, AFAIK it’s never happened with original jurisdiction cases, and for everything else, the rules are clear: a 4-4 split is taken as affirming the decision appealed to them, whatever it is. (In other words, if the State Supreme Court or U.S. Court of Appeals rules in a given way, a 4-4 split in the court affirms that ruling – which may be for the original plaintiff or the original defendant.)
God alone knows. I think there’s probably more potential votes out there for Kerry still waiting to be scooped up but I wouldn’t even try to predict whether this would get them going.
His prognosis is apparently good. But if he isn’t up to it in January, any federal judge can swear in President Kerry.
Yes. VP Calvin Coolidge was on vacation in his home state of Vermont when he received news that President Warren G. Harding had died and Coolidge was now president. He had his oath of office administered by a local notary public. But the important question is, how will Rehnquist taking ill now, on the eve of an election, affect the future?
Just my opinion but I think there will be no effect. Those who would be swayed by which president appoints to the court already know that there may be as many as 3 or 4 appointments over the next 4 years.
My guess is that if you’re the type that considers potential Supreme Court nominees when you vote for president, then you’ve probably already made up your mind. I’d say the effect on the election is miniscule, especially when the prognosis is favorable.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
His prognosis is apparently good.
[QUOTE]
I just heard an oncologist on CNN back up what I said earlier. They had to do a tracheotomy. That most certainly means that the cancer spread to his windpipe. He ain’t coming back anytime soon, if ever. My thyroid cancer was of the follicular genre, requiring a thyroidectomy and some treatment. I went on my merry way. He ain’t gonna.
Nevertheless, Richard L. Hasen in Slate – http://slate.msn.com/id/2108339 – has named five “nightmare scenarios” in which election might be decided in the SC:
[QUOTE=E72521]
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
His prognosis is apparently good.
Thanks for the information. Perhaps it’s more serious than the news is reporting. But are there other reasons to do a trach other than cancer of the trachea?
One thing I can think of is that during the surgery, there was an airway emergency requiring the trach. Even in that case, I wouldn’t expect him back anytime soon.