With the High Court set to wrap up its term this week, all eyes are on Chief Justice Rehnquist. The 80-year-old cancer victim could announce his retirement as early as Monday. There is also considerable speculation about the possible retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
As a moderate, or swing voter, O'Connor's retirement would present a far greater threat to the Left than Rehnquist's. Without O'Connor on the Court, Roe could well go down.
But at this point in time, any vacacy on the court will surely provoke a very uncivil war:
"Already, battle lines are forming over what would be the first opening on the nation's highest court in 11 years and what is expected to be the most bruising fight over a Supreme Court nominee since the bitter confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas in 1991 or Robert Bork in 1987.
Advocacy groups on the left and right are primed with phone banks, e-mails, research on potential nominees and plenty of cash.
Progress for America has said it will spend $18 million to support whomever Bush nominates to the court; liberal advocacy organizations could easily match that."
Is there any reason to believe that Bush would choose to ease the divisive tensions in the nation by nominating a moderate? Promoting divisiveness is what Bush does best. It would be surprising and decidedly uncharacteristic if he failed to nominate someone in the ultra conservative vein of his 'favorite' justices, Scalia and Thomas. Bush may also spark a heightened cultural war by nominating either of them to the position of Chief Justice.
Kim at Alas a blog has prepared an excellent 'liberal cheat-sheet" or a list of the potential nominees with the grim details of the threats they pose to Truth, Justice, and the American way, or to the Left.
Her "liberal cheat-sheet" provides a quick and easy way to assess the depth of the threat posed by each of the possible nominees on "the short list."
