Who would appoint Rehnquist's replacement if he retired today?

[vet_against_Bush]

What about if he retired after Kerry wins the election but Bush is still in office?

[keopeli]

1. The next President will. It requires Senate Confirmation

[nickinSTL]

2. Bush'll try...

But unless he can push through a recess appointment, I think the confirmation process would take too long to complete before Kerry took office. And I'd hope that the sensible Senators would do everything possible to prevent it from getting through before January.

[Walt Starr]

8. A recess appoinment ends in January

So any * recess appointment ceases immediately in January.

Expect him to do it if necessary to steal another election, though, because any decision made by the court with a recess appointment would still stand.

[dolstein]

3. Whoever wins the election

NT

[markdd]

4. Don't Existing Senators

remain "in office" until Jan 3? It might be theoretically possible for a "friendly" Senate to approve a new Chief Justice in the month or so before then.

[masonfl]

5. Bush could nominate a successor but it would have to get passed by Senate

If Bush loses the election then Kerry could withdraw Bush's nomination and replace it with his own. There is no way in hell that the Senate would confirm a Bush appointee if he loses the election.

A more worrying possibility is that Renquist retires and Bush appoints a new Chief Justice. Once appointed, the Chief Justice cann't be changed. Does the Senate need to approve that decision?

[Walt Starr]

9. Yes, Article II, Section 2., Clause 2 of the constitution requires it

Advise and Consent of the Senate is the standard.

* could do a recess appointment which would end on January 3.

[PsN2Wind]

6. I think if Rehnquist or O'Connor

has wanted Dubya to appoint their replacements they would have retired right after he took office. I think they both put it off until they realized just how bad they had f**ked up and are now trying to make amends by waiting until he is out of office to retire. No one wants to be written up in the history books as appointing the worst president in US history and not doing anything to rectify that decision. Except Scalia and Thomas and they just don't care. In fact, Thomas was the model for Dubya. The Supremes looked around at one another and said "What the Hell, if Thomas can be a Supreme Court Justice, why not Junior for president".

[tomfodw]

7. Bush could make an appointment

Not sure when the Senate would get around to trying to confirm.

Besides, Rehnquist is a righty. Bush would replace him with another wingnut. It's Souter, Stevens, Breyer and Ginsburg who we don't want replaced.

[djg21]

10. Self-deleted as dupe post

[djg21]

11. You are asking two or three separate questions:

(1) Regarding Rehnquist' position as Chief Justice, the President can nominate a sitting Justice, or appoint a new justice directly to the position, though this would be unusual. The Senate then must confirm.

Rumors have circulated that if Rehnquist resigned during the Shrub's first term, Clarence Thomas would have gotten the nod as Chief Justice. I am not joking -- Scalia would have and probably should have been the shoe-in, but because of Bush v. Gore, the thinking apparently was that he'd be too contentious. Bush is not enamored with Souter or Kennedy (he considers Souter his dad's biggest mistake), and O'Connor is also retiring soon. Moreover, Bush probably would like the opportunity to pander to the black vote by appointing the first black Chief Justice.

(2) If Rehnquist should "retire" and no Chief Justice can be confirmed, the duties of Chief Judge would pass to the most senior sitting Justice -- currently Justice Stevens.

(3) Regarding the position of Justice generally, the President makes the nomination with the advise and consent of the senate.

What puzzles me is what will happen should Rehnquist "retire" before the litigation that will ensure after this election is decided. Perhaps there will not be a 5-4 majority to steal another election.