Let's say Rehquist retires.
Bush nominates Scalia to replace him, and nominates an uber-conservative to fill the AJ position.
Has the balance on the court really changed all that much? Not so much.
If Bush throws a curve ball and nominates Thomas as CJ, then things will get ugly. All the Anita Hill business WILL be brought up again, in spades. But if Thomas eventually gets confirmed, again, where's the big power shift? Granted, having such a scumbag as CJ will be another embarrassment to the court's distinguished history, but will the power balance be substantially changed?
more below the fold...
If Renquist retires, the democrats should give the nominees due scrutiny, but unless the AJ nominee is a total whack job (not entirely out of the realm of possibility, all things considered), they should not filibuster. There's no point, other than to demonstrate that you will filibuster--in other words, to show that you can slow things up if you want. That will play right into the Republicans' hands and let them characterize the democrats as obstructionists.
If Stevens or O'Connor retires, though, all bets are off. I've said many times before that I repsect O'Connor a great deal, and would love to see her as CJ.
But if either of those two goes, then Bush will be able to completely reshape the balance of the court. That's the point where the democrats MUST take a stand, and insist on a more moderate nominee.