I change my mind: I think Rehnquist will jump
I commented recently that although "He may go today, he may go tomorrow, but I bet he'll wait until next week." From the buzz now online, I gather that my prediction, although well-founded, may be wrong.
Drudge, Fox News, and Novak all agree: it's possible that maybe conceivably Chief Justice Rehnquist is announcing his retirement today, after Bush touches down upon his return from the G8 summit.
Of course, the main thing we have to go on is rumors. Rumors, and innuendo. Our two main sources are rumors, and innuendo, and totally unfounded guesswork. Our three, three basic sources of information are rumors, innuendo, totally unfounded guesswork and hallucinogenic mushrooms.
Nobody expected the Rehnquist resignation!
/Monty Python
posted by Joe G @ 7/08/2005 04:30:00 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
I remain of the opinion I expressed at SCOTUSblog before O'Connor's departure - I don't think the Chief will go this year (excepting, possibly, feet first). This is not the term he would wish to leave as a legacy, and so I think that if he physically can, he will stay - a fortiori with O'Connor's departure.
With Drudge backtracking wildly, it now looks like I was at best premature. At worst, you're completely right - a bitter pill to admit in the context of a parlor guessing game, he said with relish and sour grapes (ew).
Simon, you may be right about the Chief's desires, but I was deeply suspicious that one of the following three things would motivate him:
1) health
2) the political and prudential considerations that must be weighed at any retirement, as outlined by Hasen on his blog at http://electionlawblog.org/archives/003693.html
3) Hey, it's summertime; why wait until October and be forced to postpone until the next Court recess, when points 1 and 2 could have worsened?
Since SCOTUSblog has "undeleted its denial" (see http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/07/rehnquist_posts_1.html#trackbacks - part of my certainty after my post came from the sudden disappearance of their flat statement that it wasn't so; after all, if they couldn't stand behind their words, maybe they suddenly believed it was wrong), I can now safely feel like it was a wrong guess to say yesterday.
As a followup to the idea of changing and altering content in the light of changed circumstances, I stand by my own modification policy, articulated in the "comment to the edit" to "Ninomania this isn't".
Deleting a post without further ado is a very sketchy blog practice, if done to withdraw the blogger's own words. Modification of a post without saying so is like a newspaper's evening edition carrying unmarked corrections over the morning edition; some readers will know, some won't, and the publisher's credibility ought to suffer.
Bloggers have absolute power to publish their own words if they wish, and major power over what else appears (comments, time stamp any date, format, links). The least we can do is be responsible - self-responsible and responsible to our readers - when we make errors or corrections.
I would add as followup:
You suck, Eh! You're a terrible guesser, Eh! You couldn't predict your way out of a paper bag, Eh! You couldn't predict when the sun would rise even if you were looking out a window and had an almanac in your hand! You suck! (apparently, I is a Canadian. I am a Canadian? No, I am not a Canadian. Let that be the end of that, Eh?
Also: burned. _So_ burned.
Eh N.
Post a Comment
<< Home