I have never really understood the basis in law for O'Connor's retirement in full.
Bush has nominated O'Connor's replacement, but there is no vacancy to fill, she is still a member of the Court.
If Alito was confirmed and O'Connor did not retire, Alito obviously could not be sworn in because federal law currently limits the number of justices to 9.
Does that mean a President could name 50 justices and the Senate could confirm them all, but they could not be sworn in until a vacancy occurs?
I mean how is that any different than naming one justice and having him confirmed to a vacancy that doesn't exist?
Maybe someone could straighten it out...
She announced her intention to resign, but said she woud stay seated until a replacement was confirmed.
I think it's nothing but an interesting academic exercize. "The system" is content to operate on the word of Justice O'Connor that she will not provoke a Constitutional crisis by holding her seat past the time a replacement is confirmed.
But the scenario SHE chose to set has the potential to result in a butting of heads between the President, Senate and Court. I wonder if US history has any other examples of Justices giving retirement dates that are contingent on confirmation of their replacement.