Redstate

At the Corner, Kathryn Lopez says there's buzz about Stevens and Rehnquist both retiring tomorrow.  Anything from your sources on that?

I've always heard that it would be Ginsberg or Stevens as the third.  But I very much do not think Stevens will be retiring anytime soon.

He better actually retire this time.  I'm getting a bit tired of "Requist is retiring" rumors floating around like they have been.  At this rate I think Scalia and Souter will retire before Requist does.

over at Kos are all a twitter about this as well.

 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/7/23140/08784

This is a quick little diary about it.

"Will Rehnquist retire tomorrow and does this mean war?"

Her sources are telling her the 10:00 am time frame as well.

We shall see.

Let the games begin!

Why now?  It makes no sense.  We still haven't even gotten a name for the seat that O'Connor vacated.  Doesn't Rehnquist know this could only make things more difficult?

on Kos that was SANE. While reading, I was thinking, how lucid, well reasoned, not hate filled interesting....waitaminute....got to the last few paragraphs and off the deep end we go!

Given his health situation he needs to retire sometime and probably in the not too distant future. Today is as good a day as any, and it certainly stirs the pot, no?

It's just very hard and tiring to get all the way to the end of the post, let alone the following thread. I'm surprised they don't link to RS since Erick's sourcing seems very accurate, and the analysis is fairly tightly arranged amongst the various posts.

They'd likely disagree with most or all of it, but at least it makes enough sense for them to disagree with.

If it's going to be a fight, let's have it and have it for all the chips. Bush has never been one to back away from a fight, in fact, he's more of a bluff caller. </poker metaphor&gt

If this rumor is true, I think we will see Bush nominate 2 stricts, the Dems will cry 'extreme circumstances' and the nuke/constitutional/Byrd option will be enacted on the first nominee (JRB) and the second will sail through (Garza). I think this is better than a nomination now and one later in the year.

I think the Dems will save the filibuster for a Stevens or Ginsberg replacement.  My guess is that Schumer and Co. will WANT to filibuster, but Reid and the leadership will understand that they need the judicial filibuster in their arsenal to have any chance at all of saving the liberal seats.  Reid will likely silently nod to the Dem 7 to refuse to filibuster, claiming that extraordinary circumstances don't exist.

Don't get me wrong, I do think that the Dems will attempt to Bork the O'Connor replacement.  But it will be more of an attempt to turn the American people against him or her as opposed to using Senate rules to block the nominee.  The Dems will be counting on blue state Republicans --- those who have to answer to more socially liberal constituents --- getting queasy after a long and hard-fought confirmation battle, with plenty of very explicit questions about abortion.

Still, I don't think it's a winning strategy.  Since O'Connor isn't the deciding vote on Roe, I can't imagine mass-defections among blue-state GOP senators.  At worst, Snowe, Chafee, and Collins will vote no on confirmation.  Specter may want to, but he won't let a no vote sink his chairmanship.  And there are some other pro-choice GOP senators, but they're largely from redder states, like Murkowski.

All in all, I'd say both of these replacements have about 51-52 solid GOP votes in the Senate for confirmation.  And we know that we have 51 votes for the nuclear option should we need it.  I can't envision a scenario that doesn't end up with Bush getting his nominees on the Court.

Now as for the later retirements, that's a whole other ballgame.

"I can't envision a scenario that doesn't end up with Bush getting his nominees on the Court."

I agree with this but add, I can't envision a scenario where the Constitutional/Nuke/Byrd option isn't used. I think the Democrats will be almost forced to use the filibuster on the O'Connor replacement.

Between the Schumer wing of the Democratic Party and all the rabid NARAL types, the Reid establishment, and the 7 red-state Dems who joined with McCain to table the filibuster of judges.  I take it you're predicting Schumer and Moonbats win that battle.  I'm not positive of that yet, but perhaps I just don't know the power of the moonbats within the Democratic Party :)

More like follow the money. NARAL, Emily's List, Moveon, etc hold quite a bit of the purse strings (especially the 527s after BCFR).

I agree the CJ's declining health is making for poor timing for W.  That said, I think analogies to Bork and Thomas are overdrawn.  Sure, there will be the sniping and attacks, but the GOP holds a solid majority in the Senate now, unlike when Bork and Thomas were nominated and the GOP was in the minority.  

Even with RINO defections, the nuclear option is off the table, unless McCain, Graham, and DeWine play spoiler.  If McCain comes to W's defense by supporting the administration's nominees, I think he'll come off looking better than Good Doc Frist for an '08 run.  Last Friday McCain said he didn't consider a nominee's ideology to be an extraordinary circumstance.  I suppose that means Graham will follow McCain, and thus the votes needed to defeat a filibuster will be had.

I meant to stay the nuclear option would be ON THE TABLE, and a filibuster less likely.  Time to rally the troops in Nebraska and North Dakota.  Those red states should tell their blue senators to beware of filibustering W's nominees.

If McCain goes for the Nuclear option, so will Graham and Dewine.  That gives us 3.  That makes it very close.  I would am not sure how Specter will vote; he may vote present.  I am also not sure how Nelson (NE) would vote.  With enough pressure, Warner may vote for it (if it is about a nominee from Virginia).

Interestingly, McCain has much to gain and nothing politically to lose if Roe v Wade is overturned.  He won't lose his seat in AZ.  He may also look better for President if it is overturned.  

McCain can also start to look more presidental by showing some spine here.

Will he do it?  Not sure.

Reid made such a big fight early on this, so that he can back off a bit later.

I think the Democrats in the Senate did a little poll and discussion and agreed not to sink a SC judge until Roe v Wade is actually at-risk.

At that point, I'm not sure what they will do.  Reid, Nelson, and a couple others are against Roe.  Except for Byrd, the few remaining southern Democrats would pay a price with a filibuster.  I really think that the GOP could win this.  Byrd, of course, will win by a landslide.

McCain could help himself a lot with Republicans if the Democrats fillibuster and he votes to change rules to stop it. He could still play his middle of the road card by talking about how he tried so preserve civility.

(Mind you McCain is wrong on: gun control, health care, taxes, education, immigration and only partially correct on the war on terror, so I do not want him to get nomination but at least he would have a chance if he did something like this)

...how this complicates things for Bush.  With Rehnquist gone, Bush's got a lot of room to maneuver.  And here's what he'll do: O'Connor is replaced by a dependably conservative and young woman judge.  My money's on Clement.  Cornyn gets tapped for Chief, and Perry in turn names Bonilla to replace him.  Bush pockets Gonzo for the next open spot.  Every relevant interest group--conservatives, Hispanics, women--is happy.  Democrats are sad.

Bank it.

The early 70's was the last time there were 2 vacancies at the same time. Rehnquist won't go until O'Connor's replacement is seated UNLESS he thinks his health is so bad he just can't continue. If he still can be propped up then he'll hold off.

. . .that this turns out to be true, CJ Rehnquist might have wanted to give Justice O'Connor her own moment in the sun, making sure that her retirement announcement was not swamped by the massive news coverage that always results from a CJ retiring or dying in office.  According to The Brethren, Justice John Harlan delayed his own retirement announcement a week (he was almost totally blind and had just learned he had cancer) to avoid detracting from Justice Hugo Black's retirement announcement (the two were replaced by Lewis Powell and by Rehnquist).

. . .to it, since that last double vacancy (Black and Harlan) was when Rehnquist was appointed to the Court.

I would humbly suggest that McCain cannot win the repub nomination because too many republicans vote in the primaries and due to his unapologized for disparaging statements about more than half the party during the 2000 campaign.

He goes out of his way to show his independance from the party, and he has succeeded. Most of the base refers to him as a republican with a chuckle and despite his support of Bush in the war (which ought to be automatic for all americans from our perspective anyway) he regularly reminds us of his independance with sychophantic interviews on the msm where he dignifys kook left views and refuses to give us that peomised straight talk in deference to the decorum of the senate.

He is untrustworthy and doesn't work and play well with others.

And if that's not enough, he showed 2 weeks ago that he learned nothing from his pow  and war experience when he suggested ltials and lawyers for terrorists captured in war.

Moreover, there will be no succesful filibuster. I doubt the dems will even try it. The repubs will not allow the dem,s to prevent a vote.

take it too the bank from the base.

Gonzales will not be any.  However, if then we get four with another leaving, that will be Al's spot.

Predictions:

Olsen or Luttig

Jones

Garza

Gonzales

If your scenario obtains (I hope so), expect more sore losers taking their ball, refusing to play, and going home ... to France, Canada, Sweden, Norway, and Spain.  This may boost Democratic prospects for the '08 election as they will be able to boast, as John Kerry, the more people in other countries support him to be president of the United States!!

If Stevens or Ginsburg go, will the Democrats have an Embolism?

Here's a scenario that we can certainly bank on.  What happens in cases that O'Connor would be the deciding vote, and Ginsburg/Stevens would join her?  We'd then have a seven person court in which the Scalia-Thomas wing would have more pull than it currently has.  

They literally would be between a rock and a hard-place.  Electorally, they can hold up three nominations for over a year and not get the obstructionism charge in full force.  And they don't want the court to go against them in 4-3 decisions either.

In fact the more nominations the President has, the better off he is.  Especially if he's replacing a true lib like Ginsburg, along with the CJ and O'Connor.

What one has to ask themselves, and we conservatives need to do this more often, what more can the libs do?  I mean we went through the 2004 campaign and they did everything up to and including the illegal registration of voters in Ohio and other swing states.  We beat them then.  We'll beat them now.  As Richard Nixon stated years ago, when the American people know what liberals would do to the country, they have them boiled in oil!  No matter how we look at this, we're winning the fight.  Even Gonzo is a step up, especially if he replaces Ginsburg.

We need to stop fretting about the past.  Yes they will whine and scream and thow a tantrum, but what in the heck is new about that?  They did it in 2000, 2002, 2004, and to what effect?  Stop fretting and let's do this with an air of quiet confidence that we know we're going to win.  

If we make the issue in the short-term just the recent property rights cases and partial-birth abortion, who does the public agree with most on these issues?  Us!   That's who.  We shouldn't fear, just perform our duty in defense of the conservative nominee and tell the libs and their  MSM cronies to go and do something that is anatomically impossible.

You said:  They literally would be between a rock and a hard-place ...

No, they figuratively would be between a rock and a hard-place.

Pet peeve, sorry.

Only 15 minutes until show time!

The time has come.  If it happens the press should report anytime now.

And if that's not enough, he showed 2 weeks ago that he learned nothing from his pow  and war experience when he suggested ltials and lawyers for terrorists captured in war.

I don't even agree with McCain fully on this, but I think you have a lot of nerve saying it.  What McCain took away from his POW experience is not for you to judge unless you have been through something like that.

Actually Capito is polling within a few points of Byrd. Hard to believe but true. She hasn't entered the race and probably won't (she'll wait until one of WV's Senators retires) but Byrd is not as popular as he once was.

I always read my posts for mistakes like that.  I missed it.  Thanks for pointing it out.

Is your update heavily sourced or a hunch?

He will not win over the base in the GOP primary.  However, McCain does need the base in the general election.

If McCain goes nuclear and makes a strong case for it, he may still get the votes from the base in his run for the election.

If McCain doesn't go nuclear, he risks facing a large number of stay-at-homes.  He also will lose a large number of Reagan Democrats.

McCain will not lose any votes by going nuclear from the left if he does it well.  He may even look stronger.

McCain's key, however, and is that if he does go nuclear, he needs to sell it well.  It needs to be on some importaint principle, relating to the need to focus on the war on terror.  McCain can critisize Bush for not making a more moderate pick; but then critisize Democrats for playing politics.

Some thing like.  "We are engaged in a war against terror.  We need to spend our time dealing with importaint military issues; and making sure that our economy continues to run well, as our industrial might is critical to our military might.  It is a shame that Bush nominated a controvertial person to the SC.  I would have seeked a consensus nominee.  But, we must stay united as a country.  We cannot afford to fight amoung ourselves on this issue when we should be fighting the terrorists.

I voted today, so that we could vote on the nominee and get that debate behind us.  Because, it really was not a debate; but a bunch of people talking and not listening to eachother....etc.  Let's face it, he is qualified, but he's conservative.  The Democrats want someone more liberal.  I would have picked someone more moderate.  But I'm not President; and neither are the Democrats.  We need to respect that the President nominated a competent judge, and give him an up-or-down vote.  Then we need to move on to defeated the terrorists."

he will demur till he is dead.  

People I know from WV don't like abortion; they don't like gay marraige; they don't like the national Democrats, but they vote for Byrd.

Younger WV voters, however, don't respect Byrd the same way that their grandparents do.

It would be interesting to see Byrd ever polling below 60% in WV.  That really is a surprise.  

About the people in the thread there who were basically forecasting a (shooting) civil war and others expressing the opinion that the United States would split up in the next 20 years.  This seemed like a new tactic to me:  If Bush doesn't appoint someone favorable to them, they're ready to take to the streets with weapons, presumably.  Interesting.

"they're ready to take to the streets with weapons, presumably."

Aren't we the ones with the guns?

Charleston Daily Mail

A new poll shows Sen. Robert Byrd and Rep. Shelley Moore Capito would run neck and neck in a possible campaign for the Senate seat now held by Byrd.

An RMS Strategies Poll released today reports that 46 percent of 401 registered voters in West Virginia would vote for Byrd if the election were held now.

A total of 43 percent picked Capito, R-W.Va., though she has not announced her intention to run.

and Phil Singer Reports

The poll, conducted by Garin-Hart-Yang, found that Byrd beats his nearest potential challenger, Rep. Shelly Moore Capito, by ten percentage points, 51-41...

West Virginians continue to enjoy remarkably strong feelings for Senator Byrd. 61 percent of people in the state view Senator Byrd favorably. 75 percent of people in the state view him as an effective Senator who gets results for West Virginia, while 73 percent think he is honest and a man of integrity. Finally, 69 percent of people in the state think he represents strong moral values.

if you want to keep up with polls there are several good sites, check dalythoughts.com often (both of these polls were posted there)

That's what should make their revolution so entertaining.  They've got the nail clippers; we've got assault weapons.

You never really know when some of the Kossacks  are being serious or just letting fly with their crazytalk because that's what they do so well to get attention.  I really shouldn't point that last part out, lest I bruise their tender self esteem!  ;)

Stevens and Ginsburg could, either one, be so sickened by the thought of George W Bush replacing the other that they sicken and die when the other retires.

The only question left is:  Will anyone talk to Breyer?