The reportedly soon-to-be-ex
US chief justice William Rehnquist.
Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/APAs the New York Times recently put it, Washington's political right and left are on code red "like hostile nations on the edge of apocalypse" over a vacancy in the US supreme court that does not yet exist.
Many expect William Rehnquist, 80, who has been the US chief justice for the last 19 years and who has thyroid cancer, to step down next week when the court's current session ends. He has not given any clear indication he is going to resign, and some say he has recently been in much improved health. But the job is seen as so important that the battle lines over his successor have already been drawn.
Others on the nine-judge bench (such as John Paul Stevens, 85, and Sandra Day O'Connor, 75) may also resign, and there are fears among Democrats that the court will become hardline Republican.
A group of conservatives met in Washington last week to promise £10m in funds to help the president, George Bush, push through his choice of chief justice, whoever it is, while a liberal group, People For the American Way, called for a consensus candidate.
The New York Times says that "both sides agree on one thing: the court has increasingly become the battleground for the nation's most polarising issues, like abortion, affirmative action and gay rights".
The future make-up of the supreme court is a popular subject on US political blogs and a widely made point after Mr Bush's election was the effect his second term would have. Some blogs are focusing on the mooted possible replacements, with some left-leaning blogs fearing Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas being promoted into the chief justice's seat.
Jay, writing on the One in Ten Million blog, argues that up until now Mr Bush has been forced to accept the landmark 1973 supreme court decision of Roe v Wade which declared that making abortions criminal was not constitutional. But Jay says that with Mr Rehnquist and Ms O'Connor expected to retire: "With another two conservative justices, they very well might be able to strike Roe v Wade down."
Jonathan Bunch, on the In the Agora blog, suspects Mr Rehnquist has "made an important phone call" to the White House and tipped them off as to his intentions. He writes that historically, when an administration has advance warning the president "often announces the retiring judge and the replacement nominee at the same time". He goes on to agree with the Washington Post that, given the venom in the issue, early presentation of a nominee is unlikely.
That's Another Fine Mess blog argues that Mr Rehnquist could stick around for another year and that would make it harder for Mr Bush to secure his choice in 2006.
If the current political climate stays the course, and things for Bush continue to get worse, it is likely the Democrats will pick up seats in Congress come 2006, and the gap between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate will shrink ... with fewer Republicans in the Senate, Bush will have a tougher time putting forth any radical judges.
Meanwhile, Michael J Stickings, on the Reaction blog, argues that the Democrats are unlikely to challenge Mr Rehnquist's replacement "as strenuously they will the replacement of one of the more liberal justices".
Sticklings writes:
They may back off here, where the court's balance isn't at stake, and instead save their ammunition for more important battles yet to come. In the meantime, Bush has a big decision to make, one that could cause a rift within the Republican party if he doesn't go with a hardcore conservative to appease the right."
And all of this without there yet being an actual vacancy ...
