The mother of all confirmation battles

John Roberts for Williams Rehnquist was one thing.
Samuel Alito for Sandra Day O’Connor was another.
But replacing John Paul Stevens with another Bush appointee? That’s a whole other ballgame. Here’s Paul Weyrich in “Rumors of a third nominee to the Supreme Court”:

That is what is likely to happen with another rumor which absolutely has swept the Nation’s Capitol since the swearing-in of Justice Samuel J. Alito, Jr. as the 116th Associate Justice. That rumor is that President George W. Bush will have another vacancy on the Supreme Court when the term ends this coming June.

One Senator claims he has specific knowledge that the vacancy is coming. The speculation revolves around 85-year-old Associate Justice John Paul Stevens.

Despite recent history, John Hawkins is still down on the “Gang of 14” agreement:

This shows why the Republicans in the Gang of 14 really blew it. Had they voted for the nuclear option, the Democratic threat of the filibuster would have been off the table. But, imagine the situation we could be in if we lose 2-3 seats in November, including guys like Santorum, who were ready to vote for the nuclear option the first time around. Suddenly, the Democrats could be in a position to block conservative nominees to the Supreme Court and the GOP simply may not be able to muster the votes to stop them. And you can be sure of one thing -- if the Democrats come to the conclusion that the GOP can't trigger the nuclear option, they will filibuster again. You can take that to the bank.

Well, as noted here and elsewhere, the Gang of 14 agreement restrains the Republicans from using the ‘nuclear’ option but it also restrains the Democrats, who would have to (somehow) demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” to oppose a judicial nominee. For a qualified nominee, this is an almost-impossible hurdle for the Democrats to clear since it’s insufficient to merely state the nominee is conservative or somehow “out of the mainstream.” The Gang of 14 deal essentially affirmed the concept of an up-or-down vote for judicial nominees, rhetorically if not concretely. It’s been a big win.