August 31, 2004

Why haven't they retired? Four years ago, the U.S. elections were said to be about much more than choosing a President. They were to be about choosing one, two, or possible even three new Supreme Court justices. Much was speculated about retirements once Republicans took full control of Congress.

The current cast has not changed since Aug. 3, 1994, the longest period without a vacancy since Congress created the eighth and ninth seats in 1837. Bush used to talk like it was "in the bag". After all, they did hand him the election. Was he denied the opportunity thanks to Pat Robertson, or why has Bush been made to wait?

posted by mecurious 20 years ago
  • ***** The last time I posted at The Left Coaster some sicko called my house, abused my wife and scared her very badly. I’m still here. I am an American, and I will not be silenced***** Sigh.
  • I have wondered this myself for quite some time now. O'Connor reportedly said, "This is terrible," and left the room when she heard the Florida had initially been called for Gore. I thought that she and The Striped One would have retired in by the end of 2001. They did not. I have no idea why. I think that the article here offers a good theory. Perhaps the attack on the Trade Center convinced them that they could be more useful, too. I don't know. But I am glad that they are still there.
  • Why hasn't this thread gotten any comments?
  • I've tended to think that Rehnquist, at least, had decided to retire in 2002 or early 2003, but stayed on when it became clear that the Court would be ruling on some major constitutional questions re: the USA PATRIOT Act, Camp X-Ray, etc. This is a guy who loves nothing so much as being a part of history. Well, maybe not so much as keeping black people from voting.
  • I would be surprised to see Scalia quit. He's more of a libertarian than a conservative, and I can't see him being too happy with some of the moves made these last couple of years, especially given the opinion he gave on Hamdi et al v. Rumsfeld.