Here's an issue that no one seems to point out that I think bears mentioning. Everyone knows that Renhquist has died, and that O'Connor is retiring from the U.S. Supreme court. That having been said, Bush may not be done with those two appointees. There is a third Justice whose tunure could end in Bush's term - Stevens.

Stevens is in remarkably good health given his age, but that's the thing - his age - it's 85. To be in very good health relative to one's age, especially when that age is 85 is surely a good thing, but health issues at such an age could arise fairly quickly. Stevens is one of the more liberal Justices, and so it is unlikely that he would want to step down while Bush is still in office. Given his current state of health it is not unreasonable to think that he could still be a fully contributing member of the Court when he's 88, but one cannot be sure.

I found an article on MSNBC that touched upon this, although not as in-depth as I would have liked. The article focuses on the Roe v. Wade debate and it brings up another interesting point. The two current appointees to the Court, will be insufficient to overturn Roe v. Wade because five of the seven functioning members (I'm not counting O'Connor even though she hasn't officially retired) are already opposed to overtuning it (in addition to the aforementioned Stevens, the foursome of Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer are all opposed). Meaning even if Roberts and the Justice yet-to-be-named sided with Scalia and Thomas, the decision would be 5-4 in favor of upholding Roe v. Wade. So Bush would need a least a third appointee, and the most likely possibility of that would be Stevens to overturn it.

You can read the entire article regarding Stevens (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9408518/) if you'd like more details. In case you're wondering, it is unlikely that any other Justices would meet with an unfortunate end prior to the end of Bush's term as the next oldest Justice is Ginsberg - at a still relatively young 72.

But really, How far to the Right can Bush really go to replace Stevens should he pass away? Really, I don't see how bad this can be...

I'd imagine he could go a very, very long way if he thought it'd get him what he wanted, as far as judicial rulings and challenges, at least. The judiciary is supposed to be a check on the powers of the legislature (yes, I know the key word is "supposed"); any government being able to stack the bench that heavily is not in the best interest of the society, as it will potentially stifle debate and prevent the court from operating independently, as intended. That's not to say that the courts should be hostile or antagonistic; I can think of few people who'd accept that it should be favourably inclined to an incumbent administration.

To be fair, though, I don't think that's a trait entirely peculiar to Bush; it's just more blatant when he does it.

EDIT: That, and right now, Bush has much bigger things to worry about than Roe v. Wade.

I also think that Bush could go quite far indeed. Keep in mind that to get Senate approval for a Supreme Court Justice, you only need a simple majority. Personally, I disagree with this rule. As Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, and it is by no means unusual for these people to sit on the bench for 30 years or more, I think it would not be unreasonable to require a two-thirds majority for these appointments, as these people are going to be around for a long, long time. Heck, Renhquist was appointed by Nixon, so he has been on the Supreme Court since before I was born!

The point being is that Roberts, who is now Renhquist's replacement is acceptable to me, because both he and Renhquist are conservative. I like the current makeup to the court. We have four liberal justices, four conservative justices, and one moderate (O'Connor). I think that having such a makeup means that the cases they hear get a fair shake. One ideologue or bias doesn't dominante their decisions. O'Connor is leaving, and Stevens may go too, meaning it is possible to have a Supreme Court that consists of six conservatives, three liberals, and no moderates. I don't like that idea at all.

As I understand it, Bush has the right to place who he wishes into any open slots (subject to some checks). It's obvious that he'll select someone who he thinks will do what is best for America as a whole. That means a right winger.

I highly doubt that Roe vs. Wade will ever be overturned, no matter how many right wing judges sit on the Supreme Court -- talk about it as they will, it's a non-issue.

Why wait for some of these judges to kick the bucket? I'm all for removing the justices who voted to screw the constitution. And that is what they did when they told us that government now has the right to steal our own land and homes to give to other private citizens. As far as I'm concerned they proved that they lost the trust that the American gave them when they did so.

Actually, khazadman, didn't O'Connor decide to retire after that ruling? And didn't she only agree to stay because Renquist died? I'm sure that that ruling will be challenged in the future, and perhaps two fresh judges may swing the vote to overturn the ruling, or at least reccommend limits on it...

The only problem with that is the Supreme Court typically doesn't review cases they have already ruled upon, especially if such a case was recently decided. Given that this ruling occured THIS YEAR, it is extremely unlikely it will be looked at again any time soon. The difference between this case and Roe v. Wade is that the Supreme Court hasn't examined that case in over 30 years, which is not a recent ruling.