Chief Justice William Rehnquist, battling thyroid cancer, will miss the first two weeks of oral arguments when the Court resumes Tuesday. This is fueling speculation about his retirement.

Bush has also recently submitted 20 judicial nominations to the Senate, 12 of whom were previously rejected.

Since judicial appointments will be a signifcant topic in coming weeks and months, we have added a section of judiciary links on the right side of TalkLeft. These are sites where you can learn about the nominations process and the courts as well as details about potential and current nominees. They are not neutral organizatins, but organizations whose views we usually agree with. You can bookmark them now, or access them when the time comes. They are:

• Alliance for Justice
• Independent Judiciary
• People for American Way

I leave the computer for 12 hours and what happens, Bush re-nominates 12 ultra-conservative judges. Who are they and how bad? Here's the offical White House list. It includes:

• Janice Rogers Brown, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit,

• Priscilla Richman Owen, of Texas, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.

• William H. Pryor, Jr., of Alabama, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit

• William J. Haynes, II for the 4th Circuit

Here are all the 12 who previously failed to be confirmed:

by TChris

Senator Arlen Specter had to make nice to the extreme right-wing before the Republican Party grudgingly allowed him to assume the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Now, it seems, he's trying to assure the extremists of his trustworthiness by embarking on a plan to confirm the appointments of the 10 judicial nominees who were filubustered during the president's first term.

Specter's strategy: take advantage of Republican gains in the Senate by reintroducing the nominees, beginning with those he considers least objectionable to Democrats. The first is timber and mining industry lobbyist William Myers III (TalkLeft background here and here). Specter hopes for support from Colorado's newly elected Senator Ken Salazar, who endorsed Myers during the first confirmation battle. Salazar's office says that Salazar will "review the nomination before taking a position."

Next will come William Pryor Jr. (TalkLeft background here, here, and here), who Specter characterizes as an established judicial moderate on the basis of five or six decisions Pryor authored during his recess appointment. That record (produced with knowledge that the eyes of the Senate were upon him) cannot overcome Pryor's disturbing advocacy of extreme positions before his ascension to the bench.

Democrats who fear being branded an obstructionist may give Specter the votes he needs to confirm Myers and Pryor. But Democrats only become relevant to the political process by standing up for their principles. Democratic Senators should stand united in continued opposition to these nominations.

This very ominous article by Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman in next week's issue of the London Review of Books on Bush's potential stealth Supreme Court nominees is one all progressives should read. Once it happens, there's very little anyone can do--perhaps for the next 40 years. [hat tip Balkanization]

There's an interesting op-ed in today's L.A. Times by Joan A. Lukey, former president of the Boston Bar Assn., positing that Bush's best bet to get a conservative, moral values driven nominee on the Supreme Court is by nominating Anthony Kennedy as Chief Justice to replace Rehnquist. In a nutsell, here is her reasoning.

The Republicans, however, do not have the 60 votes necessary to defeat a filibuster. He therefore needs a plan to circumvent the talkathon strategy. Most likely, this will take the form of giving with one hand while taking away with the other by putting forth two candidates at once.

By nominating a conservative but relatively centrist chief (i.e., a conservative who occasionally shifts toward the center, including on social issues), Bush will earn kudos, and political capital, for his restraint. With that additional capital, he can invest in his "values" agenda by filling the associate-justice vacancy with a staunch social conservative, a move that has a much more profound, and longer-lasting, effect on the ideological balance of the court.

by TChris

Last year, TalkLeft reported the story of an Oklahoma judge who was accused of pleasuring himself (and using a "male enhancement pump") while on the bench. The (now former) judge, Donald Thompson, was charged yesterday with indecent exposure. Smoking Gun has the story.

One of Atrios' readers has emailed him the transcript of what Justice Clarence Thomas said at a swearing in ceremony in Alabama. (Background to controversy here.)

PARKER: Just moments before I placed my hand on the Holy Scripture, Justice Thomas soberly addressed me and those in attendance. He admonished us to remember that the worth of a justice should be evaluated by one thing, and by one thing alone: whether or not he is faithful to uphold his oath _ an oath which as Justice Thomas pointed out is not to the people; it's not to the state; it's not even to the Constitution, which is one to be supported, but is an oath which is to God Himself.

Atrios lets Thomas off the hook... technically.

As Atrios and Ignatz say, if this is true, it's a very big deal:

An Alabama SC justice claims, according to a Birmingham News reporter, that Clarence Thomas told him:

[A] judge should be evaluated by whether he faithfully upholds his oath to God, not to the people, to the state or to the Constitution.

Atrios says,

"This is indeed a big deal, no matter what your personal religious views happen to be. Did he really say it? Will anyone else in the media bother to try to find out?"

by TChris

Should Supreme Court justices serve until they retire or die? The Framers thought so, but Linda Greenhouse reports on the academic argument for proposals that would limit a justice's tenure on the Court.

The academic critics see a variety of negative consequences from life tenure. One is that the scarcity and randomness of vacancies promise to turn each one into a galvanizing crisis. Other drawbacks include the temptation for justices to time their retirements for political advantage; an overemphasis on youth and staying power as a qualification for nominees; the likelihood that even those justices who escape the infirmities of old age - and, predictably, not all will escape - will tend after many decades to lose touch with the surrounding culture; and the fear that if the court is seen as out of touch and unaccountable to a democratic society, its legitimacy will erode.

One proposal would allow the president to appoint a new justice every two years. Each new justice would bump the most senior sitting justice into "senior status." Senior status justices would occasionally emerge from semi-retirement to perform temporary judicial assignments.

Critics worry that the plan would produce a Court that will follow the moment's prevailing political winds rather than precedent. Professor Ward Farnsworth wonders whether we can envision the problems that such a radical change would create:

"Life tenure has costs that we have learned to live with, and we ought to hesitate long before switching."

If you want to read more about the Booker and FanFan decisions, Howard Bashman of How Appealing has this group of links to a large number of news articles from around the country. For analysis, I recommend Law Prof Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy.

TalkLeft's advice to members of Congress in the wake of yesterday's Booker and FanFan decisons....go slow. As NACDL President Barry Scheck said:

For 20 years, federal courts have been forced to impose unjust, irrational sentences based on unproven allegations, speculative calculations and the worst kinds of hearsay. Congress should welcome this opportunity to create a fair and just federal sentencing system, not a quick fix.

Will they heed it? As we wrote here, Congress may have legislation creating mandatory minimums for every federal offense waiting in the wings. This Philadelphia Inquirer columnist reported in December:

by TChris

According to news reports, Chief Justice Rehnquist is back at the Court after battling thyroid cancer.

Rehnquist has undergone a tracheotomy, chemotherapy and radiation, a treatment plan typically associated with an especially aggressive form of thyroid cancer.

The Chief Justice intends to administer the oath of office to President Bush at the January 20 inauguration. No word on whether the Chief Justice plans to retire this term.

The Washington Post takes President Bush to task today on his judicial nominations in an editorial today:

Since taking office, though, Mr. Bush has behaved in a way that makes it harder for Democratic senators to act responsibly. He has largely failed to acknowledge their legitimate grievances about how a Republican-controlled Senate treated President Bill Clinton's nominees for six years. Instead, he bullheadedly sought to fill appeals court judgeships left vacant because of the recalcitrance of his own party, and he did so with scant consultation. What's more, he sometimes rubbed salt in the wound by nominating people to those seats who have staked out highly controversial and provocative ground, thereby apparently rewarding the misbehavior of his own party.

Bush the manipulator. Maybe it's Rove the manipulator, but same difference. The President rules only one branch. Checks and balances have never been more important. Because his appointees will serve for life, it's critical that the Senate remains vigilant. It will, if you do your part and email or telephone your Senator whenever a critcal judicial nominee is up for hearing. We'll keep you posted. Then you need to do your part.