The big name I keep hearing is Michael Mukasey. Religious conservative, law and order judge from NY.

This is very likely to bring civil war to this country. Fortune has smiled upon us for we have the second amendment.

All the advocacy groups have been getting ready for this for years

Now is the time for all good bloggers to come to the aid of their country, and to show Ralph Neas and the "advocacy groups" who this country belongs to. Maybe they'll find that there's a new sheriff in town this time around.

Consider now in retrospect -

Might it have been a good idea to seriously explore Justice Souter's judicial philosophy during his confirmation, rather than spending the whole time dealing with Senator Kennedy's hysterical ravings about racism and people being attacked with coat hangers?

Not this time around, boys and girls.

I agree with Kaus, a protracted Supreme Court battle is just what the President needs to give him time to make progress on the important war.

PD Shaw,

Perhaps he'll call Brown and Pryor to the WH for "discussions". After all, they've been through the JC recently and were allowed to the floor. Nothing "extraordinary" about them, right?

It would be great fun to watch heads explode if he did that.

Some of the changes the court as a whole is experiencing concern the use of DNA evidence, which has reversed a lot of really, really serious convictions. Life taking is not casual, and juries wrestle over these decisions with the expectation that the evidence is the best there is.

The court is receiving the reverberations of discovering that a lot of evidence that courts have decided on and that juries have been presented, have been expedient for the prosecutorial systems rather than based on serious and honest research.

After pondering this for a bit I think Justice Sandra Day O'Conner did us a big favor. It has long been said that the chances are there would be at minimum two nominations and appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States this Presidential term. The odds in favor of this position have certainly increased. After thinking about it I'm certainly in favor of replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Conner first then dealing with an appointment for Chief Justice William H. Rhenquist at a later date. Given Chief Justice Rhenquist's health condition and age it is highly unlikely he will serve the term of this administration. Of course I could be wrong here but I'll play the odds. I'll consider this the warm up since a nomination for his replacement as well as the nomination for first chair will certainly be one heck of a debate.

Biographies of Current Members of the Supreme Court of the United States

(80) William H Rhenquist - Oct 1, 1924 (app. by Nixon, app. Chief by Reagan)
(85) John Paul Stevens - Apr 20, 1920 (app. by Ford)
(75) Sandra Day O'Conner - Mar 26, 1930 (app. by Reagan, resigned)
(69) Antonin Scalia - Mar 11, 1936 (app. by Reagan)
(69) Anthony M. Kennedy - Mar 23, 1936 (app. by Reagan)
(65) David Hackett Souter - Sept 17, 1939 (app. by Bush)
(57) Clarence Thomas - Jun 23, 1948 (app. by Bush)
(72) Ruth Bader Ginsberg - Mar 15, 1933 (app. by Clinton)
(66) Stephen G. Breyer - Aug 15, 1938 (app. by Clinton)

Less we forget President Reagan enjoyed the lime light of having appointed three Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States and a first chair (Chief Justice William H. Rhenquist).

As it stands now, is there a possibility of a third retirement? Justice John Paul Stevens is currently 85 years of age and was appointed by President Ford in 1975. I'm not so sure that he has the stamina of Senator Strom Thurmond who served for 48 years to ripe old age of 100. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is no spring chicken either but I'll lay odds she serves throughout this Presidential term. I'm also a bit curious as to how egos on the bench might play out concerning a first chair replacement. I would suspect it wouldn't matter to those currently on the bench but one never really knows.

After pondering this for a bit I think Justice Sandra Day O'Conner did us a big favor. It has long been said that the chances are there would be at minimum two nominations and appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States this Presidential term. The odds in favor of this position have certainly increased. After thinking about it I'm certainly in favor of replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Conner first then dealing with an appointment for Chief Justice William H. Rhenquist at a later date. Given Chief Justice Rhenquist's health condition and age it is highly unlikely he will serve the term of this administration. Of course I could be wrong here but I'll play the odds. I'll consider this the warm up since a nomination for his replacement as well as the nomination for first chair will certainly be one heck of a debate.

Biographies of Current Members of the Supreme Court of the United States

(80) William H Rhenquist - Oct 1, 1924 (app. by Nixon, app. Chief by Reagan)
(85) John Paul Stevens - Apr 20, 1920 (app. by Ford)
(75) Sandra Day O'Conner - Mar 26, 1930 (app. by Reagan, resigned)
(69) Antonin Scalia - Mar 11, 1936 (app. by Reagan)
(69) Anthony M. Kennedy - Mar 23, 1936 (app. by Reagan)
(65) David Hackett Souter - Sept 17, 1939 (app. by Bush)
(57) Clarence Thomas - Jun 23, 1948 (app. by Bush)
(72) Ruth Bader Ginsberg - Mar 15, 1933 (app. by Clinton)
(66) Stephen G. Breyer - Aug 15, 1938 (app. by Clinton)

Less we forget President Reagan enjoyed the lime light of having appointed three Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States and a first chair (Chief Justice William H. Rhenquist).

As it stands now, is there a possibility of a third retirement? Justice John Paul Stevens is currently 85 years of age and was appointed by President Ford in 1975. I'm not so sure that he has the stamina of Senator Strom Thurmond who served for 48 years to ripe old age of 100. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is no spring chicken either but I'll lay odds she serves throughout this Presidential term. I'm also a bit curious as to how egos on the bench might play out concerning a first chair replacement. I would suspect it wouldn't matter to those currently on the bench but one never really knows.

Has anyone noted this strange phenomenon:

The Democrats have deployed another lame slogan for the occasion, calling on Bush to "bring the country together" - as if Bush could magically bring the Democratic Party together, let alone the country. But anyhoo, they want the President to consult beforehand with Dems, which means Harry Reid.

The strange thing is that Reid has already made public suggestions - Lindsey Graham, Mel Martinez, Mike Crapo, and Mike DeWine. And other Dems are heaping praise on these "worthy" choices.

All four are about as Pro-Life as you can get - 100% pro-life voting records, 0% ratings from NARAL - and the top Dem is pushing their names out in front. This is astounding to me. Does this mean that NOW and NARAL and Patricia Ireland are being told to go screw themselves, and stay out of this fight?

All of them come from states with Republican governors, so Reid can't even hope for a Democratic interim appointment to the Senate if one of these guys moves up to SCOTUS. So what's the deal?

Are they covering up the embarrassment of the fact that the Dem's best shot at getting a pro-choice nominee was Alberto Gonzales, who they've trashing as pro-torture for months?

Supreme Court Appointments

Relevant Documents:
The United States Constitution
United States Code - Title 28
United States Code - Title 28a

Article II - The Presidency - Section 2 Clause 2 & 3:

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. "

Title 28 Part 1 Chapter 1 Section 1 - 3

"The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum."

"The Supreme Court shall hold at the seat of government a term of court commencing on the first Monday in October of each year and may hold such adjourned or special terms as may be necessary."

"Whenever the Chief Justice is unable to perform the duties of his office or the office is vacant, his powers and duties shall devolve upon the associate justice next in precedence who is able to act, until such disability is removed or another Chief Justice is appointed and duly qualified."

Of course there is much more within the United States Code that pertain to the judiciary but for the most part I believe I have captured what is of relevance here.

So where are the road blocks going to come from?

We have already head a lot about the potential filibustering judicial nominees by the Senate. We have also heard from a host of legislative members about the potential use of cloture (Senate Rule XXII) to combat any filibuster that may arise.

Standing Rules of the Senate
Standing Rules of the Senate (PDF file)
Establishment of the Cloture Rule
Recent Developments in the Senate
Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate (PDF file)
Cloture Attempts on Nominations (PDF file)
Summary of Hearings on Senate Floor Procedures

We have also heard a lot rumblings concerning the implications of advice and consent of the Senate. This is evident to the point that there have been discussions concerning changes in protocol of Presidential nominees. See Senate rule XXXI - Executive Session-Proceedings on Nominations

Senator Kennedy; and others have already weighed in on this concerning Senate consultations. Check out the Real Media link - Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), and Chris Dodd (D-CT) talk about the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Not that this would make any difference since it seems to me that what is being requested is that the Committee for Judicial Nominees be bypassed all together. Why have hearings and a committee if the Senate is consulted on a potential list of nominees. This sort of negates the need of the committee and all that is required is a background check for stamp of approval. On the other hand the senate consultations could look favorably on the nominees and the committee could reject them all. Talk about beating around the Bush.

Of course if a Judicial nominee is not appointed prior to the time the 109th Congress adjourns (target date 30 Sept 2005) the President may appoint and fill the vacancy at his discretion. Not a good option as this would only be a temporary assignment.

Seems to me we have the making of block buster movie. Grab your soda, popcorn, Jujubees and a seat. Come to think about it you might as well bring the folding cot as well.

Supreme Court Appointments

Relevant Documents:
The United States Constitution
United States Code - Title 28
United States Code - Title 28a

Article II - The Presidency - Section 2 Clause 2 & 3:

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

Title 28 Part 1 Chapter 1 Section 1 - 3

"The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum."

"The Supreme Court shall hold at the seat of government a term of court commencing on the first Monday in October of each year and may hold such adjourned or special terms as may be necessary."

"Whenever the Chief Justice is unable to perform the duties of his office or the office is vacant, his powers and duties shall devolve upon the associate justice next in precedence who is able to act, until such disability is removed or another Chief Justice is appointed and duly qualified."

Of course there is much more within the United States Code that pertain to the judiciary but for the most part I believe I have captured what is of relevance here.

So where are the road blocks going to come from?

We have already head a lot about the potential filibustering judicial nominees by the Senate. We have also heard from a host of legislative members about the potential use of cloture (Senate Rule XXII) to combat any filibuster that may arise.

Standing Rules of the Senate
Standing Rules of the Senate (PDF file)
Establishment of the Cloture Rule
Recent Developments in the Senate
Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate (PDF file)
Cloture Attempts on Nominations (PDF file)
Summary of Hearings on Senate Floor Procedures

We have also heard a lot rumblings concerning the implications of advice and consent of the Senate. This is evident to the point that there have been discussions concerning changes in protocol of Presidential nominees. See Senate rule XXXI - Executive Session-Proceedings on Nominations

Senator Kennedy; and others have already weighed in on this concerning Senate consultations. Check out the Real Media link - Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), and Chris Dodd (D-CT) talk about the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Not that this would make any difference since it seems to me that what is being requested is that the Committee for Judicial Nominees be bypassed all together. Why have hearings and a committee if the Senate is consulted on a potential list of nominees. This sort of negates the need of the committee and all that is required is a background check for stamp of approval. On the other hand the senate consultations could look favorably on the nominees and the committee could reject them all. Talk about beating around the Bush.

Of course if a Judicial nominee is not appointed prior to the time the 109th Congress adjourns (target date 30 Sept 2005) the President may appoint and fill the vacancy at his discretion. Not a good option as this would only be a temporary assignment.

Seems to me we have the making of block buster movie. Grab your soda, popcorn, Jujubees and a seat. Come to think about it you might as well bring the folding cot as well.