Marty Lederman at sctnomination.com says Novak is wrong, but doesn't say how he knows that...

any possibility o'connor and rehnquist are worried about the 2006 senate elections?

Rehnquist might believe that it will be easier for President Bush to nominate a conservative justice as a replacement for *him* at the same time as appointing someone to replace O'Connor who is more moderate (like a McConnel/Gonzalez pairing). He can cut a deal with the Senate Democrats to get both confirmed and they won't feel like they've given anything up and both sides can save money and capital for the *real* fight that will come when Stevens steps down and President Bush tries to place a conservative (or even a moderate) on the court to replace Stevens.

Any chance the President will just nominate judges who will rely on the actual, original Constitution in making their decisions?

As opposed to whatever some of them are apparently using now?

Now Drudge is headlining that Rehnquist will retire tonight.

I didn't mean to call you foolish, I actually thought it was an interesting bit of speculation. I said that Bush would be foolish to count on that. I agree that for a guy who is 85, it may, in fact, be about an even bet that Stevens is able to wait out Bush. But, to risk giving up your ability to appreciably change the makeup of the court (we're not getting more conservative than Bill, and Gonzales wouldn't be a great departure from SOC) on that 50/50 bet would be, in my opinion, foolish. In my opinion, if he has two shots now, use them. Don't bank on a third shot to do what you want.

But who's to say that altering the makeup of the supreme court is more important to Bush than personal loyalty to Gonzalez?

Not me...but, the premise of the theory was that the Gonzales plus conservative nomination would be aimed at conserving political capital for the real Stevens fight, not motivated by loyalty to Gonzales.

If his priority is to nominate a friend, and secondarily would like to nominate conservatives in the Thomas/Scalia mold, then Bush (in my opinion) would be foolish for another reason.

Hazard: I think that in the case of Justice Stevens it is a safe bet. It is my understanding that he believes there should be a wide range of opinions expressed on the supreme court, and with Bush's promise to apoint a scalia/thomas like judge and Bush's current ability to replace O'Conor, and possibly Rehnquist Stevens is unlikely to give Bush another opportunity to make the court more homogenous.

I do not really understand the general sentiment against Gonzalez. More specifically I don't understand why everyone views him as moderate. True his position on abortion/separation of church and state is unclear but his position on presidential power is anything but. One of Bush et. al.'s long stated goals it to restore/increase the power of the presidency and it seems that noone is more likely to do so than Gonzalez. Additionally he followed supreme court precedent and written law when he wrote the opinions that every uses to support his pro abortion views. Yet on the supreme court he would not be bound by these unless he chooses to be. Bush would know best where he stands on these issues, and so if he actually is nominated its a fair bet that he would follow Bush fairly closely. I'm just baffled why everyone views Gonzalez as a compromise choice when he could quite reasonably be Bushes first choice independently of their friendship.

Also, apologies for failing to properly turn the link tag off. How do I edit a post?

Those interested in SC retirements generally should take a look at a couple books:
David Atkinson, Leaving the Bench (1999), U of Kansas Press.
Artemus Ward, Deciding to Leave (2003), SUNY Press.

Both authors are political scientists. Ward explicitly argues that many retirements since '54 have been either political or because a justice tried to wait it out until a copartisan prez and just gave up (eg Thurgood Marshall). Both are worth having on the shelf, at least IMHO.