|
If Rehnquist wanted Bush to be the one to appoint his successor, he would have retired a long enough time ago that a filibuster by the Dems could be spun as them trying to cripple the court system. He's healthy enough that he can last another 4, or 8 years, if need be. If Bush wins, I see him retiring earlier, but if Kerry wins, I think he'll go one, or maybe two more terms waiting for a Republican to get Scalia into his position.
Why Scalia? Thomas is too controversial, and will almost certainly be filibustered. He was only appointed to the court by a 4 vote margin while Bush (41) was at the height of his popularity. Not to mention the Anita Hill thing was never really settled, so he'll have to fight that again if he were to be CJ, and with Bush out of office in November, it'll take too long.
Scalia, on the other hand, was appointed quickly and unanimously, and I don't see the Dems being able to keep a group opposed to his nomination to CJ long enough.
Another option to consider is if Rehnquist does retire this year, the Dems to attempt to filibuster lasts until the election, and it's a close one, the Repubs could trade the Presidency for the CJship..eg, Kerry convinces the dems to a 1 vote majority to allow Rehnquist to CJ, and a moderately conservative judge to the court, in return for Bush's resignation.
I wouldn't want to be Kerry if he had to decide that one...
|