Saturday, July 02, 2005

06 elections and judicial nominees

Why did the republican seemly collapse on the subject of judicial nominees? Was it because the GOP did not have the votes to get the rule change through? Was it because a splinter group wanted to increase their national presence? Was it because the GOP did not want to risk a public lashing by the media which is still not friendly to it? I have read some version of all those ideas at some point in time.

I would like to though another idea into the pot. The 06 elections are coming up next year and the GOP might expect to pick up a couple of seat which would allow more flexibility in dealing with judicial nominees (they could have the 60 votes need to push the nominees though the filibuster). This would also make any seats on the supreme court easy to file.

Just in, O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court.

Let the party begin. I have never seen on of the supreme court nominations, seeing how the last one was when I was 14. I am going to follow this one very closely.

Retirement letter.
No, not Gonzales!

All links via drudge.

Gib has a nice roundup. You can follow all the links from his page, and all the links from those pages, and all the links from those pages and learn some intersting stuff. I summed it up all in below.

Your source for they upcoming fight: The Supreme Court Nomination Blog. Some one else linked to it, but I forgot who.

this is a summary of everything I read about the Supreme Count battle that is about to come up.

O'Conner has been a swing vote in some cases. Therefore her retirement is more important than someone who always votes a certain ideology. The balance of the supreme could change with her retirement.

There is a fairly short consistent list of people who might replace her. Certain conservatives do not want Gonzalas (in fact they hate the guy.) No one knows whom bush is going to appoint, but all sides are gearing up for war and the liberals expect it.

Liberals also fear for Roe vs. Wade going down the drain. The actual break down of the court would not allow that, but several things around the edges could change (parental notification and partial birth abortion are two well known examples.)

Here are a few things that I would like to point out that I have not read anywhere.

One, Bush is likely to get 5 to six more years out of a woman than a man based on the average lifespan of men vs. women. Based on that theory, he might want to pick a woman. The two most mentioned women are the same age and could easily serve 25 years.

Background: There is speculation Rehnquist might resign. Some have suggested that he will soon after Sandra's replacement is in place. Supposedly, the reason he has not retired is because he did not want to cause a great disturbance in the count, with two retirements.

This background has caused me to wonder what a huge fight will do to the resources that the GOP has. They could expend all of their time and money fighting for a strict constructionist, to take Sandra's place. If the GOP was out of steam the democrats could replace Rehnquist with a "swing" vote. The balance of the court would remain unchanged.

From the democrat’s side, if they do not fight for this one, there is little chance they will have a chance over the next Supreme Court position. They must fight and completely exhaust the GOP's resources. If they win this fight (another swing voter is appointed), then could allow a GOP win on the next one. If they lose, but fight to the near death, then they do battle against a weakened enemy and can try to appoint a swing vote for the next spot.

The dems have to fight and fight hard to even retain the balance of the court.


No comments: