Skip to comments.The Rumor About John Paul Stevens (possible impending retirement from U.S. Supreme Court)
Posted on 11/04/2006 5:00:12 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
For weeks, commentators have speculated that significant numbers of conservatives, alienated by over-spending, the Iraq War, and other perceived GOP disappointments, will stay home on Election Day, giving one or both Houses of Congress to Democrats. But for those who care about reforming the Supreme Court, sitting this one out may soon look like a mistake of historic proportions.
For the past several weeks, there has been a rumor circulating among high-level officials in Washington, D.C., that a member of the U.S. Supreme Court has received grave medical news and will announce his or her retirement by years end. While such rumors are not unusual in the nations capital, this one comes from credible sources. Additionally, a less credible but still noteworthy post last week at the liberal Democratic Underground blog says, Send your good vibes to Justice Stevens. I just got off the phone with a friend of his family and right now he is very ill and at 86 years old that is not good.
Normally, this news might be too ghoulish to repeat publicly. Nevertheless, with the election just days away, it is news that should be considered. It points out what could be a once-in-a-lifetime chance for the 20-year movement to recast the court with a constitutionalist majority. It would be a cruel twist indeed for conservatives to teach Republicans a lesson next Tuesday, only to be taught a lesson themselves within months when new Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) leads a Democratic majority against the most important Supreme Court nominee in decades. Conservatives whose mantra is no more Souters should bear in mind Robert Borks fate after the Senate changed from Republican to Democratic hands in 1986.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Gentlemen, start your engines!
This is what's really at stake. Republicans must maintain control of the U.S. Senate even if they don't desesrve it.
If he's sentenced to DEATH, any further trials are moot and we are again reminded of why our troops are in Iraq - depose Saddam (or REGIME CHANGE as it was referred to when Clinton adopted it as policy, but did nothing more than lip service). DUmocrats wanted the election to be about Iraq, and so it is.
1. Jean-Fraud Kerry infers that soldiers in Iraq are dumb.
2. Soldiers respond
3. NYT admits Saddam had nuke program.
4. Families of fallen visit Iraq (no quagmire)
5. Saddam sentenced (death by wood chipper)
News cycle seems to be working for GOP advantage thus far. DUmocrats today counter with "Rusmsfeld must resign" and "recruiters caugh lying" stories. Wow. That's new....NOT!
In addition to Saddam sentencing, Fox will be running OBSESSION - THE MOVIE, and we get to see the face of the enemy today and tomorrow. Fox is also showing "waterboarding" (Steve Harrigan, a Fox reporter volunteered to show how it is done) all day today.
I don't know what Monday brings, but I've got a good idea about the day after.
Crucial that we don't lose any votes in the Senate.
Also, we can't afford the perception that the Democrats are more popular with the voters than the Republicans, or it will be much harder to lean on them to confirm the next judicial appointees.
Bush succeeded with Roberts and Alito because many Democrats didn't dare be seen as obstructing them purely on the basis that they might vote against abortion.
It the Democrats pick up too many seats, it will change the political dynamics and make court appointments more difficult again.
Let's hope and pray. We need at least one more SCOTUS appointment, and preferably as many as we can get!
Hopefully, conservatives thinking of staying at home will read this.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg is going going gone
Heavens, Go Kean Jr. go!
With what the NJ Supreme Court did, one would think that conservatives there would be turning out.
This is the reason we all need to get out and vote!
Funny how answers to questions change when you're actually asked by the President to serve.
Could you please clarify as to whether it is the Fox broadcast Network or the Fox News Cable channel that will be running this? Thanks.
Stevens has said he since he was appointed by a Republican President he wants to retire when a Republican is in the White House. He may very well retire at the end of the current Court term.
Fox NEWS RIGHT NOW!
Stevens has said he was appointed by a Republican President will resign under a Republican President.
John Paul Stevens is Gerald Ford's biggest mistake.
To paraphrase the A-1 Steak Sauce commercials, "Vote Republican, it's that important."
In Florida, vote for Katherine Harris to get rid of left luntic Bill Nelson.
"John Paul Stevens is Gerald Ford's biggest mistake."
When Gerald Ford was President, DemocRATS had a 62 to 38 majority in the U.S. Senate. So Ford had no good options.
It's the usual rumor, but who cares? If it gets a few more human conservatives off their behinds on election day to help tthe rest of us save the nation from the scumbag Democrats and their agenda to turn America into a French-style, secular-socialist welfare state, then good.
Well, this time it's said to be coming from very reliable sources.
In that case, it would have been better to have appointed an old liberal who would have had the decency to have died during Ronald Reagan's administration. Yes, I'm sure Ford could not have seen what he was doing at the time, but Stevens longevity and voting record make him Ford's biggest mistake.
Some have ZERO concept of history....DUmocrat majority for 60 years, but Republicans are supposed to turn that around in less than two terms with DU trolls infiltrating the party?
When RINOs like McLame and Goober are no longer sent to congress, then we will have progress.
Personally, after the vomit-inducing statements of John F. Kerry, (D-Hanoi), I do not think many conservatives are thinking of staying home. RINOS or not, just go vote. Damn the lefties!
Ruth "the bird" Ginsburg, matron of the ACLU could be replaced on demerits.
Expect any day now Scalia to suggest her vote be yanked for sleeping during arguments.
change the channel.....
Let's hope we don't have a Harriet Meirs redux or a stealth Byers.
I hope if the reps lose the Senate they remember how the minority acted.
Could this be the first time something from the real world intruded into DU LOL?
Whatever, there is a good chance there will be an opening on the Supreme Court before the next elections.
I have been saying this was coming down the pike forever. Stevens is more liberal thatn the Republicans that we have now. But regardless Judges and many memebers of the Court respect tradition. He was appointed by a Republican and I ahve thought he would want to go out under Republican
These rumors ALWAYS come from "very reliable sources". ....The same sources, no doubt, who are always saying that the retirement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is imminent. Like I said, whether or not there is anything to these rumors, they MUST be given the benefit of the doubt and presumed to be true, because they certainly are possible. And that's good enough for me.
I was surprised he didn't pack it in during the summer.
I certainly hope this happens while Republicans have a majority in the Senate.
That is timely and too funny.
Soooo, I guess that was your accomplice dere in the chipper.
If the GOP does maintain a strong Senate majority, the moonbats, Leahy, Biden and Durbin will go absolutely nuts.
Chuck Schumer's head will explode.
For that reason, I must concur: Janice Brown to the SC.
I wanted her for Chief Justice sooo bad.
That would be great, but I read that she isn't interested.
Here's another important column.
I actually predicted he would time his resignation to affect the November elections.
But I thought he would resign in August. I did not anticipate he would wait until Rovember to leak news of his impending retirement.
It is not necessary to have a justice appointed if Stevens retires. At that moment we will have 4 conservative justices, one wishy washy justice (Kennedy) and 3 liberals. We will have a conservative court the moment he retires with or without a successor being named. This is so because most of the circuits are already conservative and there will be insufficient liberals votes (even should wishy washy Kennedy vote with the liberals) to overturn those conservative decisions. If the president is denied the approval of his new appointment by filibuster then the republicans can use the same method on any future appointments by succeeding democrat presidents, keeping the conservative court indefinitely. Hopefully in the future we can keep at least 41 conservatives in the senate who will oppose liberal appointments.
I understand his wife is very ill and that he commutes to Fla where she stays year round now...he was considering retiring last year to spend more time with her. If this is true, and he is moribound, how sad that he did not retire and spend quality time with her in their declining years.
We don't and we won't. Right now we are at 55-45. Next year we will be even fewer than that.