If Bush Loses, will any Supreme Court justice retire before Kerry comes in

[WI_DEM]

Any chance that if Chimpy Bush loses that some Supreme Court justice will suddenly retire so that he and not Kerry might choose his successor in hopes that the lame duck Senate would confirm a successor. I'm thinking maybe Renquest or O'Connor might try. It might be a futile attempt because in this day and age it seems Supreme Court confirmation hearings and then a vote can take months and the GOP doesn't have enough votes in the Senate to keep the democrats, if they so chose, from filibustering or delaying a vote before Kerry would come in.

But who knows some right winger on the court might take the chance and throw a Hail Mary pass and hope for the best.

[djg21]

1. No Chance!

No justice appointed by a lame duck one-term president would or could ever be confirmed.

[AlecBGreen]

5. yup

not gonna happen

[DieboldMustDie]

2. You pretty much answered your own question.

I can't imagine the Senate confirming a nominee under those circumstances.

[w13rd0]

3. Maybe he'll hold the office hostage...

...threaten to upend the transfer of power unless he gets to appoint a nominee. And then he and the dem leadership will make a backroom deal to "peacefully transfer power"...

Oh wait...well, it would be interesting. Any proposed nominee should be blocked, obstructed, stonewalled, COMPLETELY.

[RichV]

4. One word: filibuster

Dems could easily block any such action. A recess appointment might be possible, but it wouldn't be approved later on either.

[tritsofme]

6. Repubs could do a quick change-a-roo on the rules

and get rid of filibuster of judicial nominees pretty easily.

It would go down as one of the most dirty acts of desperation in recent history, but I wouldn't put it past them if it meant control of the SCOTUS for 20 years.

[LimpingLib]

9. NOPE...try it and the new rule will be filibustered itself.

How do I know?


It was the subject of a 3 day filibuster late last year lol.

[tritsofme]

10. I've read that there are ways around it

They can ask for a ruling from the Parliamentarian and enforce by a simple majority.

I read articles about it when it was a big issue a few months ago, and while sleezy, it seemed plausible.

[RichV]

11. No majority would approve that though

Because then the Republicans couldn't filibuster Dem nominees in the future. Nobody in the Sen. wants to give away their power indefinitely for the sake of short term gain. Changing Senate rules is hard as can be -- in large part because it functions as a continuing body so it's rules persist from one Congress to the next. The House doesn't have to deal with that.

[tritsofme]

12. But if we follow the scenario from the original post

and several USSC justices have stepped down, which would be a priority for them?

Control of the Court for several years to come, or filibustering nominees?

[MarianJack]

7. Another Perspective to Consider!

Both renquhist and o'connor were overheard to say that they didn't want to retire with a Democrat in office and I can remember at least 2 occasions when the halliburton administration was preparing for some retirements that didn't happen. Perhaps some of the justices have seen pres. mororn for what he is and have decided to ride it out. (?)

[MarianJack]

8. Dupr! Sorry! OOOPS!

My Bad! :spank:

[CreekDog]

13. Yeah, but a conservative would retire, that doesn't change things as much

I'm nervous if Bush appoints O'Connor's or Kennedy's successor, but Rehnquist? It would be pretty unseemly to take that choice away from the incoming president. But I guess that wouldn't stop them.

[yellowcanine]

14. Justices usually avoid retiring during a presidential election year. Of

course one could die. They are mortal after all, at least all of them except possibly Scalia.

[dolstein]

15. I'm surprised that everyone so far has missed the obvious answer

No justice is going to retire between the election and the inauguration, for the simple reason that the Supreme Court will be in session during that time. The Supreme Court's term begins in October (the first Monday of October to be exact), and, except in the case of a health emergency, justices don't retire during the middle of a term, because it would leave the court short-handed. Just imagine what would happen if the Court were deadlocked 4-4 in a series of high profile cases.

I think there's a good chance that if Bush is reelected, one or more Republican appointees will announce their retirement at the end of the next term. If Kerry is elected, then I think it's possible that Stevens would retire. Although he was a Republican appointee, I think he wouldn't want to have Bush choose his successor. But Stevens, despite being pretty old, seems to be in good health, and he might choose to remain on the court for a few more years.

[Wabbajack]

16. Sandra