Bump and Update 6:40 pm ET: The Supreme Court has closed for the day, no word from Rehnquist. Scotus Blog reports the White House Press office says no news tonight. The Supreme Court press corps has gone home. MSNBC said the press has been told there will be no more statements from President Bush tonight either.

(by Last Night in Little Rock)

The New York Times reports this morning that 56 Senators were not around the last time a Supreme Court nominee came before them. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) now leads the Senate Judicary Committee which has only 8 of 18 members with prior experience. Specter had a re-election fight on his hands after the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing where he was less than kind to Anita Hill's allegations.

We can expect that Specter has mellowed, and he isn't running for re-election. Should we feel safer that a moderate is in charge of the Committee? Staff is combing the historical records to see how to deal with the nomination process, from the FBI background check to their internal security in keeping their own papers private.

With the potential retirement of Chief Justice Rehnquist today, the game of musical chairs begins. Does O'Connor's replacement come up first, or will it be Rehnquist, presumably replaced by Scalia, and then Scalia's replacement....?

Josh Marshall posits that the retirement of Chief Justice Rehnquist bodes well for Dems:

Perhaps another way to put this is that I think it would be much easier for President Bush to push through one hard-right nominee now and another next spring or next summer than it will be for him to push twice at once.

Personally, I think we're going to get two staunch conservatives either way. I think the best we can hope for is that the Dems will will mount a filibuster as to the most objectionable. In other words, one will be horrible and one not as bad. But I think both will be hard right.

It's just another reason why Kerry not winning the election was a disaster for the next generation. The freedoms and rights we have known in this country will not be there for our children. As a parent, I find that truly sad.

Just got back from work and there are a bunch of emails from highly reliable organizations who say that Chief Justice Rehnquist will announce his retirement between 10 and 11:00 am Friday morning.

Robert Novak's new column says Chief Justice William Rehnquist will announce his retirement before the end of this week.

Bush is a stubborn man, who sounded like he might really nominate Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in the face of deep and broad opposition from the president's own political base.

Adding to the tension is word from court sources that ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist also will announce his retirement before the week is over. That would enable Bush to play this game: Name one justice no less conservative than Rehnquist, and name Gonzales, whose past record suggests he would replicate retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on abortion and possibly other social issues. Thus, the present ideological orientation of the court would be unchanged, which would suit the left just fine.

President Bush has named former Senator and actor Fred Thompson to assist in his search for a Supreme Court Justice. One view I received by e-mail from a lawyer friend:

Lawyer turned actor turned politician turned actor (Law & Order) now p*mping for Justice.

Also commenting: Pamela at Light Up the Darkness:

Law & Order Executive Producer Michael Chernuchin describes Thompson’s character as having political leanings “a little more to the right than former D.A.s on the show. He is a ‘strict constructionist,’ that is, for him, the Constitution is what it says it is and nothing more.”

Now we can expect to stay tuned to Law & Order for updates on the Supreme Court nomination drama and perhaps we should be looking for the new spin-off series from Law & Order producers soon, Supreme Court, The Reality Show.

by TChris

Right wing extremists love to label any judge who declines to vote their way as an "activist" judge. In their parlance, even a judge who declines to take action -- a judge who refuses to change the law to keep Terri Schiavo alive, against her wishes -- can be an "activist."

Prof. Paul Gewirtz explodes the myth that liberal judges are "activists." Using a reasonable definition of the term -- an "activist" judge is a judge who votes to strike down a law enacted by Congress (defying democracy, in the words of the extremists) -- Prof. Gewirtz identifies the activists on the current Supreme Court. Justice Thomas comes out on top, followed by Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Rehnquist.

The president has suggested that a follower of the Scalia philosophy of judging would make a great choice for the Court. Extremists beware: your president wants to put another activist on the bench!

Judy Keen of USA Today interviewed President Bush Monday about his choice of a Supreme Court replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The text of the interview is here.

He defended his "great friend" Alberto Gonzales. It will take him a few weeks to make a decision. He wants people to "tone down the rhetoric." Twice he said he is looking for someone who will "faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of the country." He says his judges will not have to pass a "litmus test" on Roe v. Wade or other issues. Bush's role models for a Supreme Court Justice are Scalia and Thomas.

Bush said lobbying won't affect him: "I feel no pressure except the pressure to put somebody on the bench who will bring dignity to the office, somebody who's got the intellect necessary to do the job, somebody of great integrity and somebody who will faithfully interpret the Constitution."

That won't stop the special interest groups, who are expected to spend between $50 and $100 million on campaigns. The Christian Science Monitor today analyzes the political factors at work in Bush's decision.

by TChris

Some Senate Democrats believe that their obligation to advise and consent regarding Supreme Court appointments requires them to know something about the nominee's views. Something beyond the predictable, "I will be faithful to the Constitution and only vote to overrule settled law in the rarest of circumstances."

"All questions are legitimate," Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview. "What is your view on Roe v. Wade? What is your view on gay marriage? They are going to try to get away with the idea that we're not going to know their views. But that's not going to work this time."

Many Senate Republicans want none of it. They argue that judicial candidates shouldn't be required to prejudge cases that might come before the Court. True, it would cross a line to insist that a nominee explain how he or she might vote in a case that's been accepted for review, but there's nothing wrong with insisting that a nominee opine about the wisdom of cases--like Roe v. Wade--that have already been decided. How can the Senate give informed advice or decide whether to consent if the nominee keeps her thoughts about the legal issues of the day to herself?

I hated the judicial compromise of the Senate 14 and wrote many times it would just postpone the explosion until a later day. Armando at Daily Kos says that day is upon us.

So where are we? Right back where we started. The Nuclear Option. Does Frist have 51 votes? But this time the whole country will be watching. This time we have a standard to measure against - Justice O'Connor.

Will the Republican Party, under the glaring lights of a SCOTUS fight, fully reveal itself as the Party of Dobson, as it did during Schiavo? Do they have a choice? Frankly, it is the Republican Party that is in a bind right now - piss off Dobson or piss off the country. Right now I am betting on them pissing off the country.

And Dems have 48 votes against the nuclear option. Can we get 3 more?

Update: Digby has some new thoughts on the 14 who compromised us.

From David, NYC at Daily Kos:

"Whatever happens with the Supreme Court nomination battle that is about to ensue, it's going to happen fast. Here are some things you can do right now:

• If you have a cell phone, sign up for People at the American Way's Mass Immediate Response site. This way, you'll be able to receive text message action items instantly as events break. (If you signed up during the nuclear option fight, you'll need to re-sign up.)
• Also sign up with the Save the Court, another PFAW website devoted specifically to this issue.
• Recruit friends and family members to the cause.
• Write to the President, telling him he should choose a consensus candidate to replace O'Connor.
• Sign MoveOn's "Protect Our Rights" petition.
• Contact your Senators to tell them the same thing.
• Contact members of the media and tell them you think Bush should nominate a consensus candidate. PLEASE be polite, be brief (200 words or less), and don't do copy-and-paste jobs - put things in your own words.

If you have a blog, please post these action items on your site. If you don't, e-mail them to your like-minded buddies and relatives.

"

Reading between the lines, it sounds like President Bush is going to decide on his nominee for the Supreme Court and then disclose it to Democratic Senators. That's hardly what the Dems had in mind when they said they expect to be consulted about a possible Supreme Court replacement. Reuters reports:

Bush is expected to move quickly on the nomination after he returns from the Group of Eight summit in Scotland at the end of next week. Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch said on CBS' "Face The Nation" he had spoken to Bush on Saturday and expected a nominee within a couple of days after Bush's return.

....Bush has invited Specter, Leahy, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Minority Leader Harry Reid to meet him on Friday to discuss the vacancy.

It doesn't sound like there will be any discussion, only an announcement by Bush to the Dems. Sen. Arlen Specter said today he'd like both sides to "tone down the rhetoric."

Not a chance.