I think that I may have had an epiphany regarding the Supreme Court, and I wonder what you all think about this:

As you know, there has been talk for the past 2 years that there is one possibly 2 Supreme Court justices preparing to retire. The scuttlebutt has been that they are Reinquist and Kennedy. Reinquist is considered a conservative justice, and he was a Nixon apointee. Kennedy is considered a moderate conservative, and sher was appointed by Reagan (if I remember correctly).

I have often wondered why 2 "conservative" justices would delay retirement when there is a conservative President in the White House. Why not retire now to ensure that their seats are filled by more conservatives. Then it hit me...

They are waiting until after the election, in case they have to determine this election again. Think about it. Last time, this roster of judges decided in favor of Bush because the claims of the liberals were outlandish and unconstitutional. Everyone is expecting the same types of claims from the left this time around. If the current roster of judges is asked to decide a Presidential election, and they find in favor of Bush then they would just be acting consistently. But, if the election were decided by 2 Bush appointees, then the election would forever be held suspect, as would the status of the Supreme Court.

"These justices have no credibility" the left would cry "They were appointed by Bush, and in the 2004 election we saw them return the favor by selecting Bush once again. They are pawns of the Conservatives and the Republican party".

So, these justices are waiting to see the outcome of this election. If they have to decide another court battle, then they will undoubtedly rule in favor of Bush (because Kerry's case will certainly be based on lies and deception). In which case, they can retire and still have their vacancies filled by conservatives.

So am I full of shit or what?

Works for me!

They're not staying in because they expect to decide election bullshit (BTW, you'd figure since Bush v. Gore the Democrats would want to keep all the contests about the election OUT of the courts, since there's a good chance the SCOTUS would rule the same way).

But of course they're holding off from retiring until the election is settled.  You think you're being insightful by recognizing that?  Ginsberg, Souter, are probably thinking the same way, except with liberal presidents.

Come on, I need a little input here!

Quoted: They're not staying in because they expect to decide election bullshit (BTW, you'd figure since Bush v. Gore the Democrats would want to keep all the contests about the election OUT of the courts, since there's a good chance the SCOTUS would rule the same way). But of course they're holding off from retiring until the election is settled.  You think you're being insightful by recognizing that?  Ginsberg, Souter, are probably thinking the same way, except with liberal presidents.

Then why didn't Reinquist retire 2 years ago? He had a conservative President then, and there haven't been any major decisions from SCOTUS since the U of M case. What the hell is he waiting for, Kerry to win?

You left out "perhaps" as a choice. If your theory is correct then if Kerry wins they wont retire.

Quoted: You left out "perhaps" as a choice. If your theory is correct then if Kerry wins they wont retire.

But remember Thurgood Marshall. He tried to wait for a Democratic President but he ended up retiring under Bush Senior. That's how we got Thomas.

They are probably holding off as long as possible because noone can tell if anyone will ever get affirmed anymore.  Look at the Clarence Thomas fiasco.

I think you're full of crap.  The Supreme Court didn't determine the election in 2000 - the voters did.  All the SC did was to prevent the democraps from demanding endless recounts in violation of Florida state election law.

Quoted: I think you're full of crap.  The Supreme Court didn't determine the election in 2000 - the voters did.  All the SC did was to prevent the democraps from demanding endless recounts in violation of Florida state election law.

But if there were more liberals on the court, who do you think would have won?

maybe they are waiting for a stronger senate so a better conservative can be appointed.
Hey, I am a "the glass is 1/64th full" kinda guy.

Quoted: I think you're full of crap.  The Supreme Court didn't determine the election in 2000 - the voters did.  All the SC did was to prevent the democraps from demanding endless recounts in violation of Florida state election law.

Exactly,  EVERY recount had a Bush victory.  The SC stopped endless recounts until enough votes were 'found' to change the outcome.

Make no mistake,  the dems would have kept counting until Gore won, even if they had to count for years.

If they resigned last month Pres. Bush would appoint a conservative.
If Bush then lost the election, the places would be filled  by liberals that Kerry nominated to replace their nominations.  
There is no way their replacements could be confirmed before the next inauguration.

If they hold on, they find out who will be president for the next four years.  If it is kerry, they tough out another four years.  If Bush, they resign in peace.

Larry

I may be a newbie, but I know genius when I see it.  

Now we just have to get rid of Daschle here in SD to make sure that the nominees get appointed.

While "genius" is a very strong word , I think your right.