O'Connor and the court: What promises to be a long, excruciting fight for the court has begun. Perhaps Rhenquist will retire next week, perhaps next year. But it's coming sooner or later and certainly within Bush's current term. John Paul Stevens, the most elderly justice at 85, I believe, has got to kicking around the idea of early retirement, buying that Harley and heading for a warmer climate. And now Radley tosses out this "wildcard" on Souter.

Here's a wildcard for you: I have it on reasonably good authority that an unlikely retirement might be on the way, too. A Supreme Court insider told me several weeks ago that Souter may well retire. He apparently told friends and family that he has always planned to step down upon turning 65, and that he'd rather return to New Hampshire year-round than continue to spend time in D.C. He's 65 now.

If that happens, remember where you read it first. If it doesn't happen, just pretend I never wrote it.

Grain of salt, of course. But is it possible Bush could wind up appointing not just 1 or 2, but as many as 4 justices to "The Bench?" I'll remain optimistic for the time being, in hopes that his nominations will run towards proponents of a federal govenrment with limited powers, but given the administration's stance in several of the recent SCOTUS decisions, I don't know what to think. What will totally sicken me, though, is having to listen to endless talk about abortion in the next few months/years. Nothing makes me want to throw up my hands to both sides and give up rational discourse like a good abortion debate.