Petty nitpicking: Justice O'Connor, retired or senior status, redux

Since I'm apparently in the business of clarifying potential errors I've made in light of new facts, I suppose it's only fair to pat myself on the back when new information seems to support old ideas.

Last April, I noted that "[t]he Federal Judicial Conference lists Justice O'Connor as being on senior status" and wondered "is this correct?" As I saw it, "senior status and retirement for judges are defined by statute," 28 U.S.C. § 371(a) and § 371(b) respectively, and "[t]he statute ... treats retirement from the bench and retirement into senior status as being two separate and distinct choices a Judge can make having attained a certain age." Which is a tediously long-winded way of saying that retirement and senior status are different, and the FJC is wrong - O'Connor took retirement under § 371(a) not senior status under § 371(b).

In any event, Howard Bashman today notes an opinion just issued by a panel of the Ninth Circuit, J & G Sales v. Truscott, authored by (as the opinion puts it) "[t]he Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (Ret.) sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 294(a)." (emphasis added).

§ 371's distinction between retired Justices and Judges and those senior status is preserved in 28 U.S.C. § 294. § 294(a) says that "[a]ny retired ... Associate Justice of the Supreme Court may be designated and assigned by the Chief Justice of the United States to perform such judicial duties in any circuit, including those of a circuit justice, as he is willing to undertake" (emphasis added). Moreover, § 294(b) separately deals with assignment of judges who have taken senior status. Not that it matters much, but I again assert that FJC is wrong: Justice O'Connor is retired, not on senior status, the two are distinct, and the resting of authority for her assignment on the J & G Sales v. Truscott panel on 28 U.S.C. § 294(a) lends further weight to my contention.