Posted on 11/06/2006 8:37:23 AM PST by ConservativeGadfly
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17869
The Rumor About John Paul Stevens by Sean Rushton Nov 04, 2006
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 year's end. While such rumors are not unusual in the nation's 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 Bork's fate after the Senate changed from Republican to Democratic hands in 1986.
The rumor should focus the mind not only on whether the Senate will remain majority-Republican, but by how much. In 2005, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) was able to force Democrats to abandon filibusters of numerous Bush judicial nominees by threatening use of the Constitutional Option, which would have ended such filibusters. Democrats threatened to "go nuclear" in response, shutting down Senate business. Instead, a face-saving deal was reached in which moderate Democrats agreed to drop the filibuster, effectively paving the way for the filibuster-free confirmations of John Roberts and Sam Alito.
With 55 Republican senators, the majority needed for the "constitutional option" was never a sure thing. But with significant Republican losses on Tuesday, it will surely be buried, leaving Senators Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.) and Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.) free to return to filibusters, including against Supreme Court nominees. Schumer is reported to have assured Democrats that Bob Casey Jr. -- despite running as a moderate Senate candidate -- would be supportive of Democratic efforts to block constitutionalist judicial nominees. "There's no worry on judges," said Schumer. "And judges is the whole ball of wax." Other supposedly centrist Democratic candidates including Harold Ford Jr. (Tenn.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Jim Webb (Va.) have refused to rule out filibusters against judicial nominees.
Even if the rumor turns out to be unfounded, it is worth repeating because it crystallizes the reality that there will soon be another high court vacancy. Senators elected next Tuesday to six year terms will, assuredly, vote on the confirmation of at least one new Supreme Court justice before their term is out.
This week in Indiana, Montana, and Nevada, President Bush raised judges as a key reason to elect Republicans to the Senate. By all accounts, it has been and continues to be a favorite applause line among Republican crowds. Judicial confirmations were key to tight Senate races in 2002 and 2004.
Conservatives should not forget the issue this Election Day, when the victory of a generation may be at last within their grasp.
I thought it took only a simple majority to change the senate voting rules...
Bump -- the SC is the main reason I'm a Republican. I wish Stevens well, but we do NOT need to sit this election out.
Week-end at Bernie's bump.
I think the point is that there are a few RINOs who would not support the Constitutional Option, thus eliminating it as a threat in a 52-48 or 51-49 Senate.
Indeed, the Democrats would filibuster, or suggest filibuster, in order to run out the clock on the Bush administration!
The problem has been that of those 55, at least 3 Republicans were on record as opposing the banning of judicial filibusters. Which brings us down to 52, and then several more were uncommitted based on the reasoning that in the future, Republicans might want to filibuster at a future time when Democrats again have a majority in the Senate. So it would have been a tight vote, and will be even tighter if they ever get around to deciding it.
Yes, but you had a handful of GOP senators who might not want the rule change like McCain and Hagel. Most thought a rule change would be tight, right at the 50 mark.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is also not well.
I have not waivered in my Republican vote, but alas, the beast rules in NY and I KNOW what it is like. I know how chuckie schumer wishes to continue roe v wade at all costs. Don't put any more beasts and chuckies into the Senate. You will regret it every day of your life. Vote Republican.
"a less credible but still noteworthy post last week at the liberal Democratic Underground"
I would sooner use stock tips mumbled by a homeless person on the subway between sips of a Sterno Cocktain than rely on a post on that moonbat site.
Republicans MUST hold the senate, and not just hold it, but hold it by two or three seats!!
Any so-called conservative who abstains from voting for in order to "teach someone a lesson" is a complete and utter moron. And I have less respect for them then someone who went out a voted Democrat. Only an idiot would try to affect the political process by abstaining from voting.
That is a nasty rumor.
She was just tying her tennis shoes.
One more time, with feeling!
BTTT!
No, rats had to drop the filibuster for all of Bush's nominees and Republicans agreed not to invoke the nuclear option. In other words, we agreed to immediately give the rats everything required of us while they were to be trusted to honor the deal for the rest of Dubya's term. And now at the first opportunity they're giving every indication that they plan to renege on the deal. Stupid, stupid, stupid. When will we learn?
**This week in Indiana, Montana, and Nevada, President Bush raised judges as a key reason to elect Republicans to the Senate. By all accounts, it has been and continues to be a favorite applause line among Republican crowds. Judicial confirmations were key to tight Senate races in 2002 and 2004.
Conservatives should not forget the issue this Election Day, when the victory of a generation may be at last within their grasp.**
Yes -- vote GOP!
It isn't the DU rumor that has the rumors flying, my friend. There are extremely credible sources in DC who have information that is sending a cold chill down our spines.
We have come so far and accomplished much in the past few years in the judicial nominations arena. To abandon that now, perhaps on the eve of the SCOTUS nomination that could tip the balance on the Court would be mind-boggling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.