Not sure if this belongs in GD, but since it has a political angle, it seemed appropriate.
I recall back in 99 and 00 that one of the most important things about the race was that whoever won would be able to have drastic effects on the makeup Supreme Court, given that there were a few members that were about ready to retire from the bench. I recall Judge O’Connor getting a bit of heat from announcing that she wanted Bush to win so that she could finally retire.
So my question is, why on earth have there been no retirements, and subsequent appointments? It is going to be a long time before the GOP controls the government to the extent that it does right now. The current administration has not shown particular restraint in nominating jurists to other posts that would be declared on the “extreme” side by most in the center and the left. Bush’s reelection prospects, while strong, are nowhere near the “slam dunk” they used to be.
This article discusses the possibility of Gonzales making his way to the top (but the recent letter regarding torture would seem to have ruined his chances). But, I assume that it takes a while to get the Senate to confirm an appointment and all that, so what the heck is the current admin waiting for? Are they that confident about their chances in Nov.? If they fail to get an appointment through, does anyone think that the current justices can last another 4 years before stepping down?
I just don’t understand why the right is letting this opportunity pass by. While I disagree strongly with the GOP, I cannot help but admire the incredible strategies that has lead to their near monopoly in the Federal Government,. Not nominating a judge now, IMHO, is a mistake not in keeping with the general brilliance of their political maneuvering.
Well, it just might be that while they may be ideologically aligned, they do have some respect for the office. Openly offering their seats for the sake of ensuring a conservative lock on the court would be specially awkward when they had to rule themselves on the actual election of the man who would be doing the appointing. There may also be the possibility that some of the Justices (a) have a good idea of who’s on the short list of replacements and are less than impressed (b) know there are some cases coming up thru the appeals pipeline that they are specially interested in getting their hands on (c) have had the chance since 2000 to have second thoughts about just how far to the right is this administration (“enemy combatants” and all that) and (d) quite simply are quite human and any lawyer who remained of sound mind and body would find it hard as heck to just walk away from being one of those Nine who interpret what the Constitution means.
Well, it’s not like the president can nominate someone without a vacancy.
“Hey, Rehnquist! I know you ain’t dead yet but here’s your replacement!”
I think that would piss me off.
As for why some of the elderly members of the court haven’t retired over the last three years you’d have to ask them. Maybe they still feel they enjoy the job. Maybe they want to do it until they die. Whatever.
And at this point even if one of them was hit by a bus whomever GWB appointed wouldn’t be confirmed until after the election. That would be a political hot potato until November. Then either Bush wins and the Senate considers it (with all that entails) or Kerry wins and the nomination is held up until he’s sworn in and the nomination is withdrawn and Kerry nominates his own guy.
The time for them to resign was two years ago if they didn’t want it to be a real political football.
>Well, it’s not like the president can nominate someone without a vacancy.
Exactly. Another issue is that unless conservative judges actually had wanted to retire a few years ago, they may have assumed that Bush’s popularity and re-electability may have been higher back then than it looks now. Also, SC judges often end up ruling differently once they get on the bench than when they are nominated.
“Asked what were his greatest mistakes, Eisenhower replied: “Two of them are sitting up there on the Supreme Court.” Earl Warren, William Brennan and the Warren Court helped unleash the social revolution from which this country may never recover.”
If I was a conservative SC justice 2 years ago, what about the thought that Bush might have appointed justices that would end up voting liberal?
Some interesting points. Thank you. I can’t find any (non-partisan) cites right now, but I recall stories about O’Connor being upset when it looked like Gore won, because she wanted to retire with a conservative in office. I don;t necessarily hold this against her, though it does of course bring into question her bias in deciding about the recount in '00. I would think that Gonzales would be right up O’Connor’s alley, but perhaps not.
Perhaps you are right, and they have not retired because of love of the job and respect for the office. I find this a bit hard to swallow given the partisan nature of the '00 recount decision, and the additional obscenity of making the decision a “just his time” thing, but perhaps.
No doubt it is too late. I guess my question is, why? I would like to think that the Supremes respect this country enough to not step down for political reasons, and I guess that explanation works for what we have seen so far. It just gives them more credit than I have been willing to give as of late. The opportunity just seems too great to get another Scalia or Thomas on the bench. There is the danger that the new appointee could be another Souter, but Bush has not shied away from controversal appointments (Ashcroft comes most immediately to mind).
I could potentially ascribe honorable intentions to O’Connor, but have a bit more trouble with Rehnquist and Scalia.
As I mentioned in my response to Jonathan Chance, I just don’t see him apopinting someone centrist enough to potentially start leaning the other way. I guess it could happen, but what reason would he have to appoint a moderate. The GOP has got everything in place right now to put someone just left of Attila on the Court.
My cite-free theory is that one or two of the Supremes wanted to retire after the 2000 election (Rehnquist and O’Connor, specifically), but after the close call of the Florida 2000 fiasco, decided not to out of fear that their departure would cast a shadow over their ruling in Bush v. Gore. O’Connor, specifically, had told friends that she wanted to retire under a Republican president, and was visibly upset when the early 2000 results projected a Gore win.
If Bush gets re-elected in 2004 and the Supremes don’t have to lend any more “assistance” to the matter, I expect to see some retirement announcements soon afterward.
O’Connor had said privately that she wanted to resign in 2001 or so, and this was leaked. She did not announce it.
Rehnquist, O’Connor, and in particular Stevens are getting along in years. And several of the other six are not terribly far from a possible retirement age. But nobody is either too weary or too ill to continue to serve – and I think all nine of them are aware of what a resignation would result in, SCOTUS being as finely balanced as it is at present. And getting a man who suits Mr. Bush through the Senate could be a rather interesting proposition.