Sandra Day O'connor retires

[Don Corleone]

There's a senatorial 'advise and consent' clause which is pretty vague in the Constitution. The way this has been traditionally interpreted has been that the senate would hold hearings to review a candidate's worthiness and then recommend them (or not) to the senate at large, who holds an approval vote.

There's several ways a direct vote can be sidetracked. All of them stem from the fact that unlike the House, the Senate rules (what they've all agreed to, there's nothing legally binding in them) make it hard to get things done with a simple majority. For example, the minority party can create a fillibuster (it takes a 60% vote to end discussion... if you don't want to lose a vote, don't ever let discussion end). The second way is the committe itself can refuse to end discussion on a nominee (because likewise, a minority on the committee can block the committe from closing the matter) There's also been a tradition of senators as mutually respecting aristorcrats. To that end, if an appointee's home state senator doesn't like them, he can reject them out of hand (with what's called a blue slip).

Traditionally, these tricks were not employed for partisan reasons, but more because a senator had a real axe to grind and was trying to politely tell his cohorts (I know this guy better than you do, and trust me, we don't want him). But, in the past 20 years, things have gotten much more divisive, and it's become a game of 1-upsmanship. A judicial nominee had never been rejected for their views until Robert Bork, just their capability. That started this whole mess in progress, and ever since, it's been a pissing contest over which side can screw the other over more.

Bush will nominate a replacement for O'Connor, and this nominee will more or less align with Bush's agenda. He'll go to committee, and Democrats will try to paint the guy to be an extremist. Republicans will start holding up spending bills and the committe will relent and send the nominee out for a full vote. Then the real fireworks will begin. If the nominee isn't 100% in line with the Democratic agenda (pro-abortion, pro-government oversight, pro-world government, etc) they'll have no choice but to fillibuster. This is because they'll lose their extremist support. While the extremists on either side are usually not a majority, they are the idealogues that contribute money and time during campaigns, so you can't dismiss them totally.

The Republicans have said many times if the Democrats fillibuster the Supreme Court nominee, they'll vote to change the Senate rules (which only requires a simple majority). If they do that, they'll end the fillibuster and essentially, any bipartisanship that remains. The Democrats will declare war, and they'll have to, because that will be all they'll have left until the next election. They will become as vestigal as your tail bone, with the Republicans ramrodding one agenda item after another through. By the time Nov, 2006 roles around, America will look very different.

I actually tried to be objective, but please correct me if you think I was overly favoring one-side.