Election 2010: Senate Dems may have to use 'nuclear option' to get John Paul Stevens replacement an up-down vote

After a very contentious health care debate in which no Republicans voted for the landmark bill, expect more dissent from conservatives in regard to the next Supreme Court justice.

The retirement of John Paul Stevens will challenge the resolve of President Barack Obama in an election year that will likely encounter conservative resistance of any nominee that he puts forth.

Stevens, 90, will officially retire when the Supreme Court finishes its work in either late June or early July.

Stevens hopes that someone is able to replace him quickly; however this is not likely in an election year.

It is almost a sure bet that the Senate Republican leadership will attempt to drag this out for an extended period of time—if the Democrats allow them.

So the real question becomes whether Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, will have the courage to use the nuclear option to push the President’s nominee through confirmation if Republicans start stalling?

Last year Sonia Sotomayor got through relatively easy, but I just don’t see this forthcoming nominee being allowed to get a simple up and down vote.

The filibuster has been a method used to delay vote or block debate, but conservatives have taken it to a whole new level since President Obama has been in office, and it was often used in regard to President Bill Clinton's judicial appointees to the federal bench and Supreme Court in the 1990's when the Republicans controlled Congress.

President Obama will attempt to pick a nominee that is left of center, but has an independent streak.

"We cannot replace Justice Stevens' experience or wisdom," Obama said at the White House after returning from a nuclear treaty-signing trip to Prague. "I'll seek someone in the coming weeks with similar qualities: an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people. It will also be someone who, like Justice Stevens, knows that in democracy powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."

One of Stevens’ most memorable decisions was his dissent of Bush v. Gore in 2000.

In Bush v. Gore, Justice Stevens wrote "an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed." He continued, "[t]he endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."