I’m not expecting any announcements of any retirements from the Court tomorrow, but it’s worth pointing out that the last day of the Term is one of the more common times that such announcements would be made. (Just to add to the excitement, in case you’re not interested in Heller.)
Gene Hoffman says:
Speaking of retirement, you’re up late. Can’t sleep on all Heller’s eve?
-Gene
June 26, 2008, 1:05 amOriginalism Is Useful says:
Yes. Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter retire and join the Obama campaign. Douglas Kmiec salivates and praises Souter’s jurisprudence.
June 26, 2008, 1:44 amABC says:
Unless Thomas or Scalia want to retire, the composition of the Court is unlikely to change anytime before 12:01pm, January 20, 2009.
When was the last time a justice retired during an election year?
June 26, 2008, 2:34 amone of many says:
Why would Thomas or Scalia risk giving Obama a “free” seat? Judiciary could easily keep a SC appointment in committee until after the election, and then it is a simple matter to wait for the new president to appoint the new associate. Sure it would be blatant politics, but why would something like that stop the current senate?
June 26, 2008, 3:14 amJ. Aldridge says:
A retirement would give Leahy a coronary.
June 26, 2008, 4:54 amhawkins says:
Are you implying this would have ever stopped any senate?
June 26, 2008, 6:49 amHoosier says:
I think Stevens plans on retiring, but he keeps forgetting.
June 26, 2008, 7:07 amHi Standards says:
For a Presidential Election year, Earl Warren in 1968, IIRC. Since then Justices seem to be timing their leaving to avoid election year politics.
June 26, 2008, 8:13 amREL says:
Hi Standards,
June 26, 2008, 8:32 amI would say that delaying retirement until after the results of an election is an act of engaging in election year politics (i.e., I think everyone knows that certain justices will delay their retirements as long as possible so as to maximize the chance that a replacement with the same ideological perspective is appointed).
Blue says:
Actually, it would be an interesting political ploy if one of the Obama-supporting justices would retire today. Bush wouldn’t get his nominee up before the election and Obama would be able to make the vacancy a huge issue on the campaign trail.
June 26, 2008, 8:48 amThe Mojo Bison says:
It could become a campaign issue anyway in the event of an Untimely Vacancy (which we will not wish upon anyone). So the real issue is not entirely academic.
I’m a bit vague on the specifics of recess appointments et al, so I welcome feedback on the following proposition:
While unlikely given the current Senate Majority Leader’s tactics, it is possible that the Senate could be in a recess should the next vacancy occur. A politically savvy outgoing Chief Executive would have a fully-but-surreptitiously vetted Justice-hatchling waiting in the wings, prepared to fly to Washington on very short notice (if not already present) to be sworn in as a recess appointment. The nominee of his party could then put the emphasis on requiring the opposition’s candidate to explain why this person is undeserving of a seat with the Supremes. You may still lose the election, but you have a window of opportunity to get a few decisions rendered.
June 26, 2008, 9:13 ambyomtov says:
A politically savvy outgoing Chief Executive would have a fully-but-surreptitiously vetted Justice-hatchling waiting in the wings, prepared to fly to Washington on very short notice (if not already present) to be sworn in as a recess appointment. The nominee of his party could then put the emphasis on requiring the opposition’s candidate to explain why this person is undeserving of a seat with the Supremes.
I think this would be very poor tactics.
It would have the appearance of an attempted coup – an effort to bypass normal procedures for a Supreme Court appointment.
Also, you can be sure that any black mark on the nominee’s record, or any controversial decision or opinion or article, will be found and used in the campaign.
Imagine,
“In 2004 Judge X ruled….Now George Bush has used a technicality to bypass Senate confirmation and put X on the Supreme Court. And John McCain thinks that’s just fine…”
June 26, 2008, 11:21 amone of many says:
Why yes I am, although I didn’t intend it. Pre-Roe (maybe a little earlier) it would have stopped most senates for supreme court seats weren’t generally thought of as being important enough to warrant the bad publicity. The 1994 and 1996 senates might also have restrained themselves, the balancing was so tight that bad publicity might have caused a few seats to change, and control of the senate to switch party control. It is a question of perceived advantage versus perceived cost, in today’s atmosphere the cost of blatant partisanship is seen as minimal (or even negative) while a seat on the USSC is considered far more useful for advancing a political agenda than it formerly was.
June 27, 2008, 5:24 pmMyrtle Beach Attorney says:
If you would like to find information about Colorado Springs Real Estate, visit the Real Estate Book, the web
December 2, 2009, 10:23 pmMyrtle Beach Attorney says:
If you would like to find information about Colorado Springs Real Estate, visit the Real Estate Book, the web
December 2, 2009, 10:24 pm