should Ginsburg (and maybe Breyer) retire

[Skill and Chance]

Of course not; no nominee appointed now will get out of the Senate until January 21, 2013.  The Republicans would see to that.

Bingo!! But as I said above, I bet Obama would still have a 2-3 month window from now. Once that passes the process takes to long. You go to recess and once you're out between Republicans thinking their so close, if they can just hold out a little longer and some Dem senators that would, but prefer not to vote on SCOTUS nomination a couple weeks before they face election and the nominee would be held up until the new congress took over in 2013.

Anthony Kennedy was nominated in November 1987. Beyond that you 're not going to find examples of election year nominees succeeding; Fortas of course failed.

Schumer changed the rules anyway.

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.  

[Skill and Chance]

Wouldn't matter. The Schumer rule kicked in a few months ago; Obama's power to appoint Supreme Court justices expired on July 27th, 2011.

so my question is why didn't they retire in 2011? Its hard to know whether anybody of that age can make it to 2017.

I don't know.  Maybe they truly enjoy their jobs.  Would Scalia and Kennedy retire for a Republican in 2013?

[Skill and Chance]

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.

[Skill and Chance]

another interesting question is if another ex-president will be a justice on the court. Taft was the only one. None of them really have any judicial experience. Obama is the only one with any remote knowledge of ConLaw (didn't he teach it in the 90s?)

I could see Obama being put on the court if he loses in 2012 and a Dem wins in 2016.  His reputation would have to be redeemed by events after his term.  If he wins two terms, he'd probably be too old by the next time a Dem gets in.

[Skill and Chance]

another interesting question is if another ex-president will be a justice on the court. Taft was the only one. None of them really have any judicial experience. Obama is the only one with any remote knowledge of ConLaw (didn't he teach it in the 90s?)

I could see Obama being put on the court if he loses in 2012 and a Dem wins in 2016.  His reputation would have to be redeemed by events after his term.  If he wins two terms, he'd probably be too old by the next time a Dem gets in.

Impractical. Why go through a much tougher and more arduous confirmation process when you can find another activist judge just like him.

It wouldn't matter.  The Dems would already be near 2/3rds in Congress.  If Obama and his successor both lose after 1 term, whatever is happening to the economy in 2016 would probably make 2010 look like a golden age.  Think of  a 1937-38 scenario where deficit cutting sends unemployment into the teens.

[Skill and Chance]

First, Romney WILL NOT BE THE GOP NOMINEE. That will be either Ron Paul or Herman Cain. Second, get ready in event of GOP victory, in all but the case of Mitt a one Andrew Napolitano will be a coming. Once he's in kiss abortion bye bye.

Would never happen.  The Republicans would be lucky to get 40% in any non-southern suburb in the following election if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.  The senators know this and they want to keep their jobs.