ConfirmThem

FYI and for what it's worth, next week's business meeting includes the five District Court nominees who had their hearings this week.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3556

So far at least, no new hearing scheduled on nominations.

In 1992, I believe the idea was that Rehnquist was going to take the Casey majority for himself, until it no longer was a majority.

In 2006, I think Roberts had to give Kennedy the opinion to get him on board.

Now, say in 2010, with a new Justice, who would write a hypothetical majority opinion?

Part of me thinks that Roberts would try to keep that for himself (I probably would), part of me thinks he'd give it to Scalia out of deference to his seniority, and part of me thinks he'd give it to Alito to avoid creating any tidal waves.

Just to clarify: I'm talking about an opinion severely undercutting or overruling Casey, which pretty much assumes Kennedy isn't in it. I also assume that NewMcCainJustice will be part of the majority, but won't get the opinion.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080914-9999-1m14judge.html

"President Bush nominated Anello to the U.S. District Court on April 30, and the American Bar Association unanimously found him well-qualified, its highest rating.

Given the lack of controversy surrounding Anello and his support from California senators, including Judiciary Committee member Dianne Feinstein, Thursday's vote will probably be positive, said law professor Carl Tobias.

“My expectation is it would be voice votes and it would be unanimous,” said Tobias, who studies judicial nominations at the University of Richmond in Virginia."

linked at realclearpolitics.com

Bottom line. If Obama-Biden wins, Roe is forever. If McCain-Palin wins, Roe could be gone by the decade's end.

As Catholics are the swing voters who likely will decide this election, one awaits the moral counsel of the Catholic hierarchy.

you'd think that all nine justices hand in their letters of resignation following the Presidential election.

The composition of the court will likely change very little over the next four years, particularly if McCain is elected.

Who will leave? Breyer? Don't think so. Ginsberg? If only I had a nickel for every conservative who has observed hopefully that Ginsberg is looking "frail" - she's not going anywhere. Souter? The rumor that he wants to retire to New Hampshire has made the rounds every year since he was confirmed in 1990. Stevens? Maybe. He's 88. Gettin' up there. Of course, he has some significant records in his sights. He'll pass Holmes as the oldest justice to serve in late February 2011, and he'll pass Douglas as the longest serving justice in July 2012. Anyone think Stevens will willingly hang up his robes before he hits those milestones? I don't. It's also useful to remember that Justice Stevens' brother, his OLDER brother, older by FOUR years, was still practicing law in Florida as of early 2008.

So I'd say its even money that no justice will retire or otherwise leave office in the next four years if McCain is elected. So that just kicks the can down the road to 2012.

Of course, you never know what might happen. O'Conner is perfectly healthy and could be serving on the Court yet, but for the health of her husband. So I'm not saying it isn't important for McCain to win. I'm just saying that it's not quite the be-all, end-all moment that some make it out to be.

Justices are serving too long. The stats prove that length of Supreme Court service has increased dramatically over the years, while presidents (for example) continue to serve no more than eight years. This makes the Court more remote than ever from public accountability. An independent judiciary is great, but we don't need a Supreme Court that makes the nomination and confirmation process such a rare event.

I think the only practical solution that has a chance of actually working is a greater financial incentive to retire after reaching a certain age or after having served for a certain number of years. I'm not talking about reducing any judge's salary, but rather increasing the pension on condition that they retire in a timely manner. This makes good sense for another resaon too: a retiree has more time to kill, and so could use some extra money for travelling and other enjoyments.

No less than Stevens himself obliquely stated in the infamous NYT interview that the low workload provides him a reason to stay. Hear more cases!

Also, take away one clerk from them (I've seen this suggested), with the dropped clerk's salary added to the J's salary. Rehnquist only had three (for tennis reasons) and he was the most efficient CJ in history, so there's no need for Roberts to have four, and therefore no need for an Associate J to have three.

Fact is, they all appear to have loads of spare time for book-writin', speechifyin', interviewin', politickin', & foreign travelin'; they've all made millions since confirmation save maybe trust fund baby Souter; and the conservatives are every bit as guilty if not more so than the libs. They DO need to get out there, but that's what the summer's for, and they can sneak in some brief reviewin' at that then anyway.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

I agree justices are serving longer, but one of the noteable reasons for that is because they are being appointed younger. Roberts (who I support completely) I believe is the second youngest CJ in our history, second only to one of the early ones. We all support appointing young conservatives to the court - because we know their impact will be longer lasting. But if we really want to limit the amount of time justics serve, we should support an ammendment placing a lower age limit (55?) to justices, and maybe a limit of maybe 45 to be on the COA.

I am not convinced it is a good solution, but it is a thought.

Roberts is actually entitled to FIVE clerks. He only hires four tho. The associate justices each are entitled to four. Personally, I think the number of clerks should be reduced by one per person justice. Roberts should get four clerks, the others three.

Anyone notice that the Senate Republicans have said nada specifically about Glen Conrad being blocked? At one time, I held out hope for him. I thought the Dems would confirm him as a favor to Warner, a Republican they like. Guess admiration gets you nowhere nowadays in Harry Reid's Senate.

It ultimately depends on how cynical justices are and how much they care about their personal life vs their legacy (ie like minded replacement).

There's a reasonable chance at least that 3 justices head out if Obama is elected. Obviously we can't win every election and there will eventually be a Dem President. If they're going to win, though, I'd rather have it be in a year like 1996 or 2000. Right now we have 1 justice who is highly likely to retire in the next 3 years, and there's a solid Dem Senate for the next 2.

I don't want any more Marshalls. Consider McCain's election defense.

Clinton didn't appear to have a huge agenda for the courts, hence the 'compromise' choices Breyer/Ginsberg.

I'd be more likely to toss this election if I felt that Obama was in the same boat, and more confidence in justices not to retire.

http://www.abanet.org/scfedjud/ratings/ratings110.pdf

Not that I'm holding out a lot of hope here, but Paul Diamond got a WQ rating from the ABA today.