Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80, is not getting any younger. He's sick. And a Republican in the White House likely means his seat on the bench, if vacated, will be occupied by another Republican. For these reasons, speculation over the chief justice's possible successor--to fill the court's top spot, and if necessary, to additionally fill Rehnquist's spot on the court--grows louder.

Though Republicans control the White House and the Senate, don't pencil in a conservative to take Rehnquist's spot just yet. Why?

First, Republicans appointed seven of the nine justices on the court, yet liberals (Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter) still outnumber conservatives (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist). In fact, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and G.H.W. Bush together appointed more jurists to the left of the political mainstream than conservatives to the right of it. Second, President Bush has disappointed conservatives through his amnesty program for illegal immigrants, by flip-flopping on campaign-finance reform, and by his enthusiastic support for big government. What, other than delusion, inspires confidence that the president will suddenly find conservative convictions that he has never shown evidence of having? Finally, pro-abortion Republican Arlen Specter sits as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Because Specter is joined in the Senate's Republican caucus by a half-dozen or so steadfast abortion-rights supporters, any jurist deemed a strict constructionist will face a bipartisan base of committed "no" votes from the start.

Despite nominating Justices Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, Republican presidents did place Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and William Rehnquist on the court. Is there a chance President Bush will nominate the next Scalia or Thomas? Certainly. Is there a better chance that he'll nominate the next Sandra Day O'Connor or Lewis Powell? Yes.

"First, Republicans appointed seven of the nine justices on the court, yet liberals (Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter) still outnumber conservatives (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist). In fact, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and G.H.W. Bush together appointed more jurists to the left of the political mainstream than conservatives to the right of it."

This statement is undeniably true.

Recall the run-up to the presidential election and the way Bush partisans resorted to scare mongering about the specter of "John Kerry puttin justices on the Supreme Court". As I waged a relentless internet chat campaign for Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka, that was precisely the retort I got, particularly from conservative evangelicals. Undoubtedly, without these evangelicals, John Kerry is in the White House.

Alas, the evangelicals will never learn - they'll continue to allow themselves to be bamboozled by the Republican Party and we as a nation will continue to suffer under a Supreme Court that disregards the Constitution.

The best advice is to pray (you know, like to God?) that Bush lives up to his very authentic pro-life convictions and appoints a pro-lifer or sneaks one in.

Anyone wanna take this bet? Ashcroft is Nominee #1.

Ashcroft was nominee #1 in 2000. Now Ashcroft is nominee #2000.

"What, other than delusion, inspires confidence that the president will suddenly find conservative convictions that he has never shown evidence of having?"

Well, let's see. Bush has appointed conservative judges to the lower courts, he said that his ideal justice was Scalia, and he has a solid record, both in word and deed, when it comes to abortion issues. What's more, from a party stand-point, the Republicans must know that the wrong move here would ruin them for elections to come, perhaps forever.

As for Specter, he was sufficiently brow-beat when he was selected. A deal was made or he would not have made chairman. Notice how quickly and extensively he back-tracked from his comments. Specter knows that he wouldn't be chairman for very long if he opposses Bush's nominees.

Specter will be chairman even if he opposes Bush's nominees, the Senate likes its traditions (sort-of . . . apparently they don't care about declaring war) and the rules are such that it will be extremely difficult for them to remove Specter.

The issue will be whether Bush is willing to send up strict constructionist after strict constructionist not caring how many the Senate rejects. He has to be willing to play a war of attrition on this, does anyone think he will be willing to, or that Karl Rove would? I don't.

First of all b/c Rove and Bush misunderstand the election results. They think that the election gave them a mandate on their belligerent foreign policy (and immigration policy as they think Hispanics voted for the GOP), when in fact it gave him a mandate on social conservative issues. He has totally ignored the evangelicals and their desire for an anti-homo marriage amendment, an amendment he doesn't believe in, outlawing something (homo civil unions) that he DOES believe in.

Bush wants to expand NCLB and do a decently major overhaul of the social security system and I am betting that he will be completely willing to compromise with Dems on SC justices in order to get the votes he will need on NCLB and SS.

You have to look at what issues Bush really cares about, how he thinks he will make his name as a president. It is not by overturning the socially progressive status quo. He wants to make a name by giving Muslims abortion rights not by taking ours away.

"[Bush] wants to make a name by giving Muslims abortion rights not by taking ours away."

That's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. All I can say more than I've said is, we'll have to wait and see.

Glad you found it ridiculous Brad, it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

My sincere point would be that Bush is at best a libertarian in his social views, not a conservative. As Ann Coulter recently asked "where is the religious fanatic we supposedly elected"? He is more concerned to spread freedocracy (he apparently doesn't distinguish freedom and democracy, like Sharansky) in Arabia than to curtail so-called "freedoms" here at home. That is an observation I am making and it bodes ill for the chances of getting justices appointed who understand what it means to be a nation of laws not men.

Ok, then I say we get an Ashcroft-like individual. I guess Ashcroft is a bit of a strech, but a pro-life current or former Senator is in the cards, IMO.

"[Bush] wants to make a name by giving Muslims abortion rights not by taking ours away." -Brian

Contra Brad, that is the most brilliant thing I've ever heard.

It is at least true of the neocons, and it is true of Bush to the extent he's let his 'vision' of himself be highjacked by the neocons. Let's pray that he actually believed and believes _some_ of the conservative things he said in 2000.

Oh Brigid you are gonna make me blush.

Of course I suspect you may be more interested in disagreeing with Brad than praising me ;)

I do think the neocons are definitely social libertarians, the Jonah Goldberg's of the world are more than happy to just go along with liberal social trends like homo marriage.

What about naming Scalia Chief Justice? Any chance? I am not sure how the Dems can really oppose him effectively since he is already sitting on the bench. I wish Bork wasn't so old now, I have always thought it would be fantastic if the GOP had repeatedly nominated Bork.

I'm a Pennsylvania native who worked on the campaign for Congressman Pat Toomey to unseat Specter. Everyone knew that if re-elected, Specter would be appointed the head of the Judiciary committee. Yet Bush made several trips to Pennsylvania, put his voice on radio ads, and appeared on tv ads to promote Arlen. Either Bush is confident that Specter will not block pro-life justices (Specter said this in public), or Bush isn't is conservative as we thought (Reader, I hope you see this).

By the way, did you all know that Specter has just been diagnosed with CANCER? Some of my friends are wishing death to him. While I do not want the man to die, it would be nice for him to resign because of this...who knows, maybe God sent a blithe down to curse him so he would resign? Stranger things have happened.

Here's an interesting article profiling one candidate and mentioning others:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956

Christopher, you may want to get some new friends.

"While I do not want the man to die...."

How noble? Who says virtue is waning in this country?

Chris, you've kind of strayed over that fine line, bro. And your friends hurled themselves across, singing. How ghoulish was it to hear whasserface say that she hoped Clarence Thomas' wife fed him lots of eggs and butter so he'd croak? (During his confirmation circu - er, hearing.) Yikes.

Let me say, in defense, that although I do not have a death wish for Specter, I did find it sickly amusing that one of my friends who I worked with on the Toomey campaign was jubilant on hearing the news of Specter's unfortunate diagnosis.

After I informed her that Hodgkin's Disease is quite curable, she wasn't as enthusiastic.

So let me ask this question: Is there a politician that you dislike so much, that you wouldn't mind seeing them infected by some incurable disease? Or have I strayed over the line, once again?

No, I don't mind answering. And to be fair, I'll share my own struggles with the line.

When it comes to it, the point I wrestle over is how happy to be about the consequences, while regretting the cause. If (say) Hillary Clinton decided to leave public office forever because of an illness, I'd be sad that she was ill, but grateful that she was out of the Congress. If Mike Moore caught something that ended his lucrative fantasy fiction career, I wouldn't want him to suffer or die, but I'd be overjoyed about not suffering through any more of his dreck.

Ideally, that is. On a bad day, I may not be as ideal as I hope. =/

Actually wishing someone dead is just creepy, and as such, should be reserved (if at all) for geniune creeps: Yassir Arafat and other mass-murderers, for instance.

Guys, where is this going? I don't think a discussion fantasizing about the illnesses of others is a very healthy discussion to be engaging in. Talk about whatever you want, but this type of back-and-forth seems more fitting for a leftist/hater type site.

Sorry, boss. I wasn't fantasizing - I just used concrete illustrations for the purpose of discussion. As such it's only fair to make the discussion about my own heart, so everyone knows I'm not accusing or making pointless generalizations.

As far as health vs. sickness, the lefty sites do tend to display it more, but it's not something to which only the left is prone. We all have dark moments, as well explained in Jeremiah.

Dan,

You are right...morally, we shouldn't take delight in the misfortune(s) of others. But come on, wouldn't Michael Moore developing some kind of illness that inhibited him from speaking, writing, or communicating his garbage point of views be at least somewhat attractive?

Can you say Chief Justice Clarence Thomas?

That would be pretty awesome, Steven. CJD, I don't wish any ill on Michael Moore. In fact, I only wish good things for him--that he see the error of his ways, have a reverence for truth, and stop promoting anti-American garbage.

Dan,

That's a good way at looking at it. Your optimism speaks volumes for your character.