Best wishes to Chief Justice Rehnquist's family for their loss. It was nice to read that he was with his children when he passed away.
As to what next, will President Bush redesignate John Roberts as Rehnquist's replacement? That would leave Justice O'Connor on the Court (since her resignation is effective upon the confirmation of her successor), and would make Roberts the Chief Justice. If Bush really wants Roberts to be the CJ, it seems to me this is a political risk worth taking; that way, there's only one confirmation hearing. (Whereas, Rehnquist had to sit through two hearings; once, to be confirmed as an Associate Justice, and the second time to be confirmed as Chief Justice.)
I'm curious what the Democratic response strategy will be to Rehnquist's passing. As a young buck, I don't have much memory of past confirmation proceedings - even Clarence Thomas, if you can believe it. What's the etiquette for oppositional parties when a Supreme Court justice passes away while in office? Has there traditionally been greater deference to the President when death, rather than retirement, creates a vacancy? A facile - but likely - media spin (Fox News, et al) on any Democratic opposition to, say, a Janice Rogers Brown could be that the Democrats are not honoring Rehnquist's legacy.
Bush might be interested in Janice Rogers Brown as Chief. It'd be something of a political high-and-tight fastball - might undermine the strong Democrat-women and Democrat-black correlations that the RNC seems so intent on shattering.
Any thoughts on the likely fallout?
Posted by: Paul | September 04, 2005 at 04:10 PM