Redstate

How trustworthy are these anonymous sources anymore? Blah. Both would make perfectly good sense, but how long do you think Rehnquist will remain alive? I see no reason for O'Conner to step down, though. Especially if she's such a "swing vote" now, I doubt she'd want to give Bush a free seat.

My sources say the same....while the Rehnquist stuff I can't further comment on other than to agree, I will point out that O'Conner has also hired a new clerk for the next term.

Her husband is deathly ill, for one.  And she was rumored to want to step down in 2000 but thought it was too close to the Bush v. Gore decision.  She is a Republican and I can't see her holding out hoping for Mrs. Clinton to name her replacement.

If Rehnquist wants to be the longest-serving Chief he will have to live to 95.  John Marshall was Chief for 34 years.  Rehnquist's only been Chief for 19.

If he wants to be the longest serving Justice (of any kind), that is probably possible (the record I believe is William O. Douglas's 36.5 years and Rehnquist already has just under 33.5).

They get hired many many months in advance.  The surest way to signal a retirement is to stop hiring clerks for future terms.  O'Connor should have hired her clerks for the 2005 Term months ago.  I doubt she was looking to tip her hand by not doing so.

either way, it's not like he doesn't have access to the best medical attention on the planet. And his job isn't exactly pickin' a tomato from a Homestead, Florida farm during the summer heat. The wear and tear won't be much and he could hang on long after he has lost his physical and mental capacity for the job. I think your source could be correct. Retirement from death however may not be as far off as he would like to think. Perhaps some time to reflect with family might weigh on him more than the Rehnquist your source understands.

His form of cancer is mostly not a problem and has a very high cure rate. Reoccurrances are not all that common. But which type of thyroid cancer is it?

papillary

follicular

medullary

anaplastic

and are there any parts that were inoperable?

There is still much to learn about his condition.

No offense, but Erick's Deep Throat sounds a lot more credible than all these other anonymous sources.  The vision that his source sets out at least makes sense.  It sounds like something that the White House would do, as well as the Justices themselves.  All of this other info feels like triple hearsay.  POTUS wouldn't be spending all of this time and energy on SCOTUS nominees if there weren't a few vacancies in the works.

Judge Kozinski on the 9th has a story about being hired as a clerk for Justice Douglas at 11am only to find out later that day that he was retiring.  One can only assume that Justice Douglas didn't decide to retire on a whim after lunch.

Besides, many other justices who retired had full slates of clerks coming in.  Not hiring clerks would be the surest way to tip your hand towards retirement.  Also, hiring clerks and then retiring is not necessarily cruel to those clerks as most often get picked up by other justices.

I don't think any of these anon sources sound very credible.  To me, they all sound like exec branch insiders (lower end folks in the WH counsel's office or DOJ OLC/OLP...can't remember which deals with confirmations).  What they don't sound like are SCT employees (clerks or chamber's staff), which are the only folks that I think would have a real clue as to what's going on.

I'll give credence to retirement rumors, the second that WR or SOC goes public with their retirement and not a moment sooner.  

Shoot, it's not really all that far-fetched to imagine that it's all a ploy by the WH to send a message to the Dobson-types that it is looking out for them.  Even if there's not a retirement in the offing, getting the message out that Gonzo is not on the list and Luttig/Roberts are will reassure the no-more-Souter types out there.

But, at the end of the day, I'll believe it when I see it (or hear it) and not a moment sooner.  

The problem I have with this is that Rehnquist is going to want a Republican to name his replacement. If he stays 3 more years to become the longest serving Justice (assuming no big change in the Senate in 2006). Summer of 2008 will have a full-scale presidential election going on. The Democrats will try then to delay, throw enough mud, and complain to try to push the nomination (a defeat or withdraw) to the next president (D in their minds). Is that a chance that Rehnquist wants to take? Plus, right now, we have a solid majority in the Senate, making this the best year to get through a couple of Justices (assuming the worst for Nov 2006).

But I must strongly disagree with your comment that other clerks usually get picked up. That's not at all true, especially since O'Conner is one of the few who doesn't necessarily hire based on the inside track, although she does sometimes.

Also, its not like clerks get hired for every term. They don't. It can be three years before a justice hires. Now, to be fair most clerks are coming off of clerkships on the circuit court and aren't at all to be pitied. (A clerkship is worth about a $250,000 signing bonus, but around the same salary as other top law grads) Still, its not like she hiring an intern.

meaning to nitpick, but O'Connor is spelled with "or" not "er".

It's my maiden name and this spelling error is common.

I have a question: what is your reaction to the list provided by Harry Reid? Would most conservatives accept the people on that list, or are those candidates permanently tainted now?

We ought not to feel obligated to chose a nominee who is "approved" by the minority party nor should we consider a nominee "tainted" merely because Harry Reid would not filibuster them.

Instead we ought to pick whoever we think would be the best candidate for the job.  The rest is merely a sideshow.

Rehnquist is known as an experienced poker player.  Plus, he's a widower so he can keep his own counsel.  I suspect he's told nobody his plans.  Fact that he may have signaled to the Administration who he might want as a replacement doesn't contradict this.

solid Supreme Court picks for President Bush.  If three conservatives are confirmed to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O'Connor and Justice Ginsburg (I realize the size and scope of that 'if'), and either Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas is elevated to Chief Justice, then I also envision Justice Stevens stepping aside, possibly during the summer of '07.  That gives President Bush a fourth pick, and the opportunity to stop an unnerving trend by our highest court toward personal policy preferences and away from its constitutional limitations.

Before all is said and done, and after much hysteria, the constitutional option will be exercised, and the balance of the Supreme Court will be:

5- conservatives

2- moderates

2- liberals

Just a prediction based on gut a feeling, my read on President Bush's commitment to the 'Office of the President' and his desire for comprehensive judicial reform, and a positive view of the evolving political landscape as '08 approaches.

For one, none of them have been judges before which is okay but there are two Senators who have: Senators Cornyn and Sessions.  If Reid had signaled his approval for some of the people actually being talked about (Luttig, Roberts, McConnell, etc) that would be useful.  In fact, if he signaled that Dems wouldn't oppose one he could probably ensure which one gets chosen.  But if he throws out people who aren't on the shortlist, then it is more a political play than an actual attempt at being constructive.

I think his concern for the country by ensuring another federalist replacement will outweigh his personal ambition of setting long records.  

do you think that any of the people Reid mentioned are the best for the job? If no, is it because of their lack of experience? What would you say about the promotion of Judge Posner, from the 7th Circuit?

It is not my call.

Were it so, I would do much more homework on the topic.  From what I have read, I would like to see Luttig, Roberts, Garza, Clements or McConnell as the nominee.  I wouldn't mind Owen, Brown or Pryor but I would avoid them in a bid to avoid a Senate Showdown.

I don't think Reid's list are "the best for the job" although they might be acceptable.  Lack of experience alone makes them less desirable than others although it does not disqualify them.  I don't know much about Judge Posner or the myriad of other circuit court judges so I can't really give an opinion.

I think that if Reid was actually concerned about avoiding a partisan showdown, he would signal which of the shortlist nominees he would prefer/accept.

I sincerely hope Hillary does not get elected. I highly doubt she will, but even her being the prime candidate will probably eliminate any chance of me voting for a liberal candidate. The worst race, IMO would be Bush v. Clinton. I really am just not too happy with the Bush administration as a whole, and never was. I don't know much about Jeb, though, although I've heard he's about the same plane as George, but possibly a bit more liberal. I don't know.

I tend to fall on either side of an issue depending on what it is, and for that reason I like coming to both Redstate and The Nation. I like that while posters belittle the posters of the opposite forum, the discussions going on within each forum are actually well-articulated on both sides, with holes in each argument being torn open indirectly on another forum.

The main thing that annoys me is going on The Nation and seeing trolls post "You liberal f*gs will go to Hell because God hates you and so does Jesus" or on here seeing liberals call everyone Fascists because they support Bush. No matter which side I'm debating on, lib or con, the other person ends up just completely shutting down the conversation with something incredibly close-minded like "Because the Bible says so and since you disagree you're wrong and a heathen". I absolutely HATE that. Not so much because it's the Bible, but because it's simply one source of information. If all my information came from Comrade Stalin or Der Führer, I'd obviously believe them. Wouldn't you, if you never have a backdrop against which to analyze it? I know I'm leaning towards a rant on Conservatives, but I just can't stand being called Satanic because I don't read the Bible for it's face value. I'm an Apostolic Christian and the same thing happens if I try to get into the finer points of the Bible with other Church-goers...just looking at parts critically and analyzing them. A lot of people seem to think that if you question your Faith, you are thus weakening it and it's bad. I think if you question it, the answers are what strengthen it.

Again, I apologize for possibly coming close to Conservative-bashing. I'm not trying to troll, just voicing some honest concerns about the lack of open-mindedness, and I've had more personal experience with religious conservatives being closed-minded than staunch liberals in conversation.

Judge Posner is far to old for an appointment as he is already 66 years old.  He has written on the topic that foreign law should never be used as a precedent for US cases, which is a positive for him, but no way should Bush nominate someone who may be replaced by the next president. To bad Bush the elder didn't place Posner on the court instead of David Souter 15 years ago.

In terms of the people Reid suggests. Dewine is a non starter.  Crapo, and Martinez I am not sure about.  I have no idea if they are originalists or not.  if they are not originalists, than they are non starters.

Cornyn would be the Senator to put on the court if bush were to look to the Senate

A clerkship is worth two years' top 100 firm first year associate's salary? That's a heckuva jump from a clerkship for a Circuit Court judge.

Clerks still do pretty well for themselves. I think my point was that even if you don't get the huge bonus, you still get the huge starting salary.

I will also now mention now that the news is out there and I'm not compromising anybody that the clerk in question was hired without an interview, which was "suspicious" to say the least.