Virtually everyone, me included, has assumed that Chief Justice Rehnquist would be retiring at the end of this term due to his ongoing health problems and advanced age. But is that true? One court-watching blog is reporting that Rehnquist has just hired his 3 law clerks for the October 2005 session. Might mean something, might not.
More like this
Looks like Bill Kristol was right. Justice O'Connor is retiring from the court, which just ramps up the intensity on this summer's confirmation fight even higher than it would be if Rehnquist retired. Why?
Came across an interesting article about the possibility of Scalia replacing Rehnquist as Chief Justice if Rehnquist decides to retire.
The Supreme Court issued a ruling today that caught me very much by surprise. The case is Locke v Davey, and it involved a Washington state program that gives scholarships to students based on academic excellence.
Chief Justice Rehnquist issued a statement yesterday that he was not going to announce his retirement and that he intended to continue on the court as long as his health permits:
Maybe just maybe, the Chief Justice is personally so offended by the inflammatory rhetoric of the reckless right, that he is unwilling to open a seat up, until they are no longer such a threat.
FWIW, there's a lengthy article lauding Rhenquist--as chief justice--in a recent Atlantic Magazine. I don't know if the article is on-line. There are two aspects to a chief justice. One is his jurisprudence, more than a bit of which I would probably find objectionable. The second is his ability as the chief administrator of the federal judiciary--and in that, the author (who is no conservative) suggests--he has been excellent.