On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:24:56 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:

You notice that no supreme court justice has retired during this particular
presidential term? There is a reason for that.


Which is an interesting commentary on the state of the Supreme Court
appointment and confirmation process.

Clearly there are several members of the court who have expressed a
desire to retire or who are demonstrably in declining
health--Rehnquist, O'Conner, Ginsberg for example. Note one
conservative, one swing and one liberal in their judicial temperment.

Bush sought to have them delay retirement until '02 hoping for a
greater majority in the Senate and therefore easier confirmation. That
didn't occur. During the second half of his first term, he was forced
to ask them to hold still longer (at least the conservative/swing
member--the liberal member would delay hoping for a more sympathetic
president/senate to determine her replacement.)

Now, the '04 election will very clearly determine if the floodgates
for a court transition are opened or simply trickle. We might have to
see deaths on the Court rather than retirements.

It isn't uncommon for a presidential term to go by without
appointments to the Court--the average through the history of the
court is about one per term and since there are plenty of examples of
multiple appointments in a term, there are necessarily a lot of
no-appointment presidential terms.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org