U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist could be strident in expressing himself. Remember that his last public statement was a July warning to stop speculating on if or when his thyroid cancer would force him to retire. He died Saturday with as close as a judge comes to having his boots on, having done some court business as late as Friday. There’s a lesson for all of us in such tenacity.
For his successor, presumably John Roberts, there’s a lesson his Rehnquist’s effective, collegial management of the court for 19 years. He had strong ideas about where the court should go, yet he seemed to value above all the court’s impartiality and respect for his fellow justices. His will be a hard act to follow, as well as a long one.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Jed on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
10 Comments
I shall miss Rehnquist, he was a decent man and a capable jurist. now if only that talmudic witch Ginsbug and that scumbag Breyer would kick off, we could perhaps start to see some of the evils of the court undone!
It seems that Rehnquist loved to preserve state rights — until the political pressure from his party came to bear, and he reversed himself in Bush v. Gore.
Disgusting.
Real, seriously, let it go.
Supreme Counrt decisions stay with us for quite a while, so there’s no letting go, as they define the future for all of us under the rule of law.
Just ask a few people about Roe vs. Wade and tell them to let it go.
Gee Ian,
Based on your comments about IQ a few days ago, I’d have thought you’d included Clarence Thomas in your death wish list. As a matter of fact, I’d have thought you’d want to off all of them and fill the 9 openings with jurists of East Asian descent. How about Judge Ito from the OJ trial for Chief Justice????
GR,There you go again: more tripe. Bush never “stole” the election. All the counts, past, present, and probably future, show that Bush won Florida, Supreme court or no Supreme court. More whining. You’ll probably have “bush stole it” engraved on your grave.And which side of Roe v Wade should let it go? Seems to me both sides got a lot to say…still.As for Rehnquist, they will be some big shoes to fill. He did his job and did it well.
Rehnquist was a partisan hack who perjured himself in his nomination hearing. While working for Justice Jackson, he wrote a brief in support of Plessy vs. Ferguson (separate but equal), and during his hearing, under oath, he claimed that it was meant to reflect the views of Jackson. Jackson later voted AGAINST ’separate but equal,’ and Rehnquist later admitted that he had defended the doctrine in his own right.
At Stanford, he would goose-step and shout ‘Heil Hitler!’ in front of the dorm that housed Jewish students, and was notorious for telling racist and anti-semitic jokes.
In other words, he was the very model of a modern conservative justice.
JM is delusional:
“There you go again: more tripe. Bush never “stole” the election.”
I never said he stole the election. I am beginning to doubt you can actually read.
“All the counts, past, present, and probably future, show that Bush won Florida, Supreme court or no Supreme court.”
First of all, my comment was about THE COURT. Its decision was wrong, and went against everything Rehnquist stood for. Rehnquist spent his entire career fighting for state rights, and now when it became politically convenient, he reversed himself when the stakes were astronomically high. Politics before country – the Republican way.
And what kind of crazy lunatic makes his own impeachment robe? What is he, Admiral Windwagon?
Come on now, GR, you never said, in your life, in any blog at this site that Bush stole the election? Yep…here comes the Easter Bunny.Your reference to “Courts” left only one thought in mind: the election results. Rehnquist was secondary.From what I can gather, the reason the Supreme Court was drawn into the Florida election was the fact that the Florida Supreme Court was violating the United States Constitution in regards as to how they were allowing and dsiallowing votes, and the way the recounts were set up.The verdict was: Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer’s proposed remedy–remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an “appropriate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000)None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront.The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.