On the news crawl tonight I also saw that Judge Roberts would

[texpatriot2004]

be the youngest Supreme Court Justice (if confirmed) in 200 years. Wow. In the past I heard some talk about how they needed young blood in the court.

I thought I saw that there would be an "additional" vacancy for * to fill (which I took as in addition to O'Connor - like maybe there's been a bad justice) but the vacancy won't be filled until after the Roberts hearings are done. I may have misunderstood and there is only O'Connor's place to fill?

[Kenroy]

1. well

there are now two vacancies: O'Connor's and Rehnquist's.

The question I don't know the answer to is this: Is Roberts now filling Rehnquist's seat, or is he filling O'Connor's seat, and then being elevated to Chief?

[texpatriot2004]

3. Yeah, that is a really good question. I don't know what to think

about him yet. I am inclined to be suspicious. Something doesn't seem right. I don't know alot about him though so I will watch and learn.

[Baconfoot]

5. He is now filling Rehnquist's seat.

[Kenroy]

6. So that means

O'Connor will be back on the court for the beginning of this year's term?

[question everything]

10. Yes. When she resigned she said she would still be there until

a repalcement is found

[Kenroy]

11. cool

Yes, I knew she said that, but I was unclear about whether Roberts was still filling her seat or Rehnquists. Thanks for the clarification.

[Der Blaue Engel]

2. Rehnquist n/t

[Fridays Child]

4. That's the problem. He could shape the high court for a long time.

O'Connor will be replaced after the Chief Justice vacancy is filled. I believe she's returning until then.

[texpatriot2004]

12. Given the shape of the "High Court" now I am really against the

long term approach to "shaping" the court. I am still not over that whole 2000 fiasco. They had NO right! I haven't been impressed with the kinds of opinions they have issued in the last five years...AT ALL! They shouldn't be there for life without accountability. They ought to be removed if they act like some of the ones there now (ie Scalia, Thomas, and there was that dirty little secret pill habit of Rehnquist coupled with the political witch hunt of Clinton. Okay, so can you tell I don't want the "High Court" being shaped for 50 years at a friggin' time.

[yy4me]

7. This situation is like being promoted

without getting the job. Wish I was so lucky. Aren't promotions supposed to be based on performance?

[texpatriot2004]

13. Yeah, that seems wrong. You ought to have to "prove" yourself

first. Plus, seems to me like the Chief Justice (just common sense here) should bring some actual Chief Justice experience to the table. It's kinda like "Brownie" I want them qualified.

[Erika]

8. The Supreme Court has taken into consideration the evolving

feelings of the citizens. If W gets a couple neocom extremists on the Courts, they will feel the wrath of American moderates.

When these right wing nuts try to take away women's right to choice, I promise I will quit paying taxes and tell the government to go to hell. I won't be alone.

[texpatriot2004]

14. Taxation without representation was what the first Patriots

rose up against, among other things; didn't they have a whole list of grievances, a long one?

[nonconformist]

9. I wonder what the stats are on CHIEF Justice? nt

[texpatriot2004]

15. DK don't know. Might be interesting to see. n/t

[necso]

16. Letting this lackey slip

through without at least knowing the next nominee is a grave error.

What if all the candidates are of this type (poison without a clear label on the bottle)? What do the Dems do then? Where do they make their fight? And how can they make the case that this (eventual) fight is somehow different than the previous (unfought) ones, if the difference in the candidates is not (obviously) great.

And we need to find out who else has been being sold to the reichwing crazies (like this guy was). That would be a much better indicator of who the next candidate might be than anything spewing out of the usual collection of idiots and liars.