The Drudge Report
is announcing:
Stay tuned. The question is, who has better connections: Bob Novak or Marty Lederman? Or perhaps there is a Baltimore prosecutor named Larry Rehnquist who is retiring?

  UDPATE: I wonder if reading so much speculation about Rehnquist's retirement in the last few hours will change the way I talk for the rest of the day. Instead of going to dinner at a place that is supposed to be pretty good, I think I'll be meeting a very reliable source at an undisclosed business near the White House that well-placed contacts tell me has historically good tuna.

  ANOTHER UPDATE: Go home, people. No retirements tonight according to the White House. Not that the exact timing of the retirement mattters; if it's true that Rehnquist will retire next week, the White House will be busy all weekend either way. Meanwhile, the winner for best connections goes to . . . drum roll please . . . Marty Lederman.
Jonathan B. Wilson (mail) (www):
I've collected links to all the rumors at
7.8.2005 6:07pm
anonymous coward:
Lederman's post is no longer up from the main page. I suspect they've heard something to make them doubt their sources.
7.8.2005 6:13pm
anonymous coward:

WP article on speculation: here.
7.8.2005 6:18pm
listening to the beltway (www):
I've heard from a source with links to the WH that the SC marshal is sitting at the WH with a letter from the court...
7.8.2005 6:19pm
w. lyle stamps, esq. (mail) (www):
fyi, the Lederman claim is still on the site, but it is hidden in another post now saying:

"Note that Novak isn't always 100% right"

or something to that effect. Link is at:

7.8.2005 6:19pm
anonymous coward: seems pretty damn sure, as well.
7.8.2005 6:21pm
TomH (mail): lists this:

"Update [2005-7-8 17:20:42 by Erick]: William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States, has retired. A White House statement is forthcoming. Should caveat this: A very good source says this."

We shall see...
7.8.2005 6:32pm
William Baude (mail) (www):
The post is still there, but gone from the front page (as is the "Note that Novak" link...)
7.8.2005 6:32pm
Gabe (www):
Anyone else a little bothered that the SCOTUSBlog people seem to be trying to erase any trace of their predictions?
7.8.2005 6:35pm
William Baude (mail) (www):
Vaguely. And at the same time, the Drudge Report has now posted a caveat that the announcement may wait until Mon.
7.8.2005 6:37pm
Gabe (www):
True, but I expect Drudge to play fast and loose like that. With a respectable blog, I expect them to leave their post, especially when they go out on a limb and make predictions, and simply update it later if their predictions are wrong.
7.8.2005 6:39pm
PD Dude (mail) (www):
I haven't seen it written, but I think that Orin Hatch could be one of the appointees. He's very conservative, but he would probably make it through the confirmation process without a problem. Also, Bush would have no concern about losing his seat, as Utah is a safe Republican seat.
7.8.2005 6:40pm
William Baude (mail) (www):
Gabe: Agreed. Only think I can think of is that the info was subject to some sort of embargo that they accidentally violated, and they're trying to rectify the situation.
7.8.2005 6:42pm
Gabe (www):
It would be sad if they violated an embargo in order to report inaccurate information. Wait and see, wait and see.

Back to studying for the bar.
7.8.2005 6:45pm
Pathethic Coward (mail):
I've been reading the Anti-SCOTUSblog for a while, and I'm starting to think that Goldstein might be something of a, well, let's just say that my original view that Goldstein was the cat's meow is now more "nuanced" or "balanced." That they erased those posts from the main page, if not scandalous, at least adds more "nuance" and "balance" to my views.
7.8.2005 6:51pm
Bryan DB:
You all are hilarious, seeing cowardice or malice in someone removing GOSSIP that they can't verify.
7.8.2005 6:54pm
Gabe (www):
It is not that they could not verify gossip. They affirmatively asserted that Novak was wrong. Then they went back, took down several posts, and sanitized others.

I don't know about cowardice or malice... but I do think it is bad blogging.
7.8.2005 6:57pm
William Baude (mail) (www):
I'm not even willing to go so far as calling it bad blogging, particularly since the posts remain there via direct-link (see Orin Kerr's post, supra), at least for now.

It's just... odd. And vaguely bothersome.
7.8.2005 6:58pm
I know both Tom Goldstein and Marty Lederman, and I'm certain they are not trying to "hide" anything. Relax, folks.
7.8.2005 7:03pm
Gabe (www):
Come on Professor Kerr! Now that it looks like we'll have to wait to Monday for further Rehnquist gossip, we need to engage in subsidiary and tangential gossip. You wouldn't want me to go back to studying for the VA Bar, would you?
7.8.2005 7:06pm
Ted (www):
Instead of going to dinner at a place that is supposed to be pretty good, I think I'll be meeting a very reliable source at an undisclosed business near the White House that well-placed contacts tell me has historically good tuna.

Oceanaire? The heck with this Rehnquist stuff, we want to know where in DC you can get tuna that's "historically good"!
7.8.2005 7:17pm
Gabe (www):
SCOTUSBlog has a post on point to our discussion:


And for what it's worth... they were right.
7.8.2005 7:21pm
Sorry, Ted. Turned out that my sources were wrong about the tuna.
7.8.2005 7:22pm
William Baude (mail) (www):
I am now officially not even vaguely bothered by SCOTUSBlog. Score Lederman 1, Novak 0.
7.8.2005 9:00pm
Jonathan B. Wilson (mail) (www):
It looks like we'll have to wait until Monday. To quote Judge Smails from Caddyshack, "Don't you people have homes?"
7.8.2005 9:10pm
Jeremy Pierce (mail) (www):
It's possible he really was going to resign today but changed his mind in view of the terrorist attacks, not wanting to monopolize the news at a time like this. On the other hand, maybe all the rumor-mongers are conspiring to make a sarcastic point about very reliable anonymous sources.
7.8.2005 9:28pm
dred (mail):
This is kind of out from left field, but what about UT Con Law Professor Philip Bobbitt?

He is one of the nation's top scholars on not only constitutional theory, but also on democratic society's response to terrorism and other emerging challenges. He would be an interesting supreme court justice.

I have not seen his name come up anywhere on the Internet, though.
7.9.2005 12:39am