should Ginsburg (and maybe Breyer) retire

[Torie]

Certainly not!  They have miles to go before they sleep. They're invaluable!  

Moving right along, both in all events would finish their term at the end of June, and the Pubs would indeed delay confirming anyone who was not clearly a real moderate and a real swing vote. The gloves would come off, and Harry would have a fit as the Pubs play the filibuster card, leaving him in a position as to whether or not to can it, which would indeed be poetic justice. Any more liberal nominee might get 50 votes anyway, given how much stress some of the Dem incumbents are under.

So no.

[Torie]

They need to retire ASAP, and Obama needs to replace them with 25-year-olds just out of Berkeley.

Perfect! I really like that plan!

[Torie]

How did Schumer "change the rules"?  There were no Supreme Court retirements in Bush's term after 2006 anyway.  Reid probably couldn't get a vote at this time, but what does it have to do with Schumer?

That having been said, I think the Dems would be in a vengeful mood over 2009-10 if the Republicans have full control in 2013.  I'd expect them to vote unanimously against basically anything a President Romney proposes beyond the naming of a monument (remember, the average House Dem would be way left of Obama after more seats are lost).  That probably also means using the filibuster as liberally as the GOP did under Obama if they still have 41.  

Quite simple.He stated that in the unlikely event of a vacancy after July 2007 any nominee should be automatically rejected.

Did the Senate Democrats formally adopt this as their policy?  Could it ever have been enforced in a vote?

On a slightly unrelated note, I wonder if we will ever have a future president ignore the supreme court like Andrew Jackson did.

Newt wants to try to ignore them a bit. One of his themes is "judicial tyranny," citing Jefferson ad nauseum, who was a kook on the issue.  And no, I won't be voting for Newt under any circumstances.