Rehnquist has Died

Remove all ads!

In the midst of the Katrina aftermath, Justice Rehnquist has died. I never cared much for the man. Yet, anytime another human being passes into whatever fate awaits him in the hereafter, it is sad and tragic. Given the deaths of so many of the poor and powerless in New Orleans it's a reminder that the Reaper could care less about wealth and power, but is equal in his choosing.

Like most of those who thrist for power, Rehnquist refused to give up the levers of power in his last days. Instead of turning the Court over to someone who was going to live through the summer, Rehnquist decided that it was worth it to go out as the Chief Justice, even though he was hardly able to walk the corridors of power in his last days. To be honest - but somewhat disingenuous, I find that typical of a Nixon holdover. One wonders if it's the fever of death and disease, or the fever and addiction of politics that drives some people to such extremes.

Yes, he began his career defending segregation in the Brown v Board of Education case. Also, he advanced capital punishment, and as a clerk, argued passionately for the executions of the Rosenbergs. It was Nixon who appointed him in 1971. And it would seem that our current president, George II, was an avid disciple of the "Rehnquist Doctrine" during his few short terms as governor of our fine state of Texas - at least judging by the track record of executions George left behind here.

But it's more than that: He leaves behnd a legacy of documents and briefs supporting poltical and governmental secrecy, wire-tapping and covert arrests that fall far outside our national ideas of "due process of law," and basic fairness, which is typical of the doctrines of both Nixon and Bush II. And yes, he was a strong supporter of Nixon's invasion of Cambodia during the Vietnam days. And how about Bush v Gore? Rehnquist was up to his pleated, fine robes in that "ground-breaking" decision as well.

Rehnquist was living proof, and a reminder, that Geroge II is still the most Nixonian president since...well, Nixon.

 

Here's the CNN article.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/03/rehnquist.obit/index.html
Of course now this means that Bush gets to appoint two, count em, TWO new Supreme Court Justices.

 

Yeah, but he'll have to work to beat Reinquist. not that he won't try.

 

Strange as it sounds, I was very surprised when I saw the headline on CNN.com a few minutes ago. Wow. What a time for that, eh? But then, I suppose there never is a good time to die. May he rest in peace. I wish he'd stepped down when he had the chance, rather than die in the top spot. But at least he's no longer on the bench.

And now Bush gets to appoint not one, but TWO new Supes. Great. I don't really have a problem with Roberts, but I shudder to think who he'll nominate next. Somehow I doubt it'll be someone who'll do exclusively what a Supreme Court Justice is SUPPOSED to do - which is interpret the constitution completely free of their own personal sociopolitical biases. But Bush may surprise me.

 

There's speculation that Justice O'Connor may rescind or delay her resignation. She still holds her seat until she officially retires, after all, so right now there's really only one vacancy. Curiouser and curiouser.

 

Interesting post, you take the death of one man to attack another. Perhaps you overlooked the possibility that Rehnquist had devotion to duty -- perhaps he simply knew no other life and could not imagine himself resigning. You do not know -- yet you choose to take shots at him after he has died.

 

T2 - You may wish to try and dispute the content of my post rather than my motives. It may be that something may have been "overlooked" in the content itself. There are three politically powerful individuals in my post, which have all shaped similiar policies, and are thereby connected by them. Politics aside, all three men are personally connected, either directly, or through one of the others. In this instance, Rehnquist is the thread that connects the policies of all three, which was one of my larger points in the post.

The poor policies, which I attack (and I am proud to do so) are subject to the same criticism, regardless if two of the crafters of those policies are dead, and one, still alive. That is beside the point. If you wish to defend those policies, or even the individuals themselves, then feel free to do so - that is what debate is all about.

[ September 05, 2005, 05:14: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Can someone please fill me in briefly on who this Rhenquist person was and what the impact is of his death? I've never heard of him.

 

I'm with Chandos on this one. The man should have given up his post months if not years ago. I have a lot of respect for O'Connor, she realized she didn't want to die with the robes on.

 

Harbourboy: Rehnquist was the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He was appointed to the court by Nixon, and then appointed Chief Justice by, I believe, Reagan. The Chief Justice has only one vote in decisions, just as the other eight justices on the court have one vote, but he also has the considerable power of choosing which justice will write the majority opinion, since the actual language of these opinions is important.

Rehnquist was conservative and occasionally reactionary, generally supporting the power of the government over individual rights, but not over property rights.

 

I guess the power of prayer really works. That nutjob who's been praying for years for a justice to die finally got his wish. All this death during W's reign makes me wonder if God really isn't punishing us. And coming from an agnostic, that's saying something!

 

The politics of the US never fails to put on a show, no matter what tries to upstage it. I guess that Renquist's death will try to trump the Hurricane aftermath...

 

I don't understand what the outrage is. Two conservatives quit the court and Bush will put two more back on. To me that is status quo.

 

Roberts has been nominated for the Chief Justice position...announced in a press conference this morning.

 

Why is it that the president who has done us more injustice and harm than any other in our history gets to name 2 new supreme court justices?
Dubyuh's actions in his two terms (taken by cheating) are insane.
He is the betrayer!!!
May all the dung heaps of Maladomini rain down upon his head

 

BBC Commentory on Roberts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4209134.stm

 

Fhjull, you're bit over the top there.

Chandos, your post is simply attacking a man you did not like, whose political stance you do not agree with. You certainly were not attacking his policies -- just him (read the way you phrased your comments). And he wasn't even cold yet. I wasquite shocked to see such things written by you -- I do respect your opinions (even if I do not agree with them), but this was a bit too far..

 

Well ....... it sounds like the boats are in the harbor now doesn't it? (the harbor of resentments)

Where did the gold stripes on his robe originate? http://www.c-span.org/questions/week136.asp and I quote
___________________________________________

""""The costume which inspired Chief Justice Rehnquist is worn by the Lord Chancellor, a character called upon to settle a dispute among a colony of fairies. Ironically, the story line has the Queen of the Fairies taking revenge by casting a spell on the hero, Strephon, which turns him into a Member of Parliament, and grants him the magical power to have any bill passed without opposition. This allows the fairies to take over Parliament.""""
___________________________________________

Ahhhhhhhh (sniff, sniff) I smell a BG MOD
I can't stop laughing
so what would the mod be called?

 

T2 - Well, I did "attack" him because he defended segregation. One of his comments defending segregation was, if I recall: "Folks in the South just don't like colored people." But that was the 1950s, so we will give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. But then he continued by challenging black voters at polling places in Arizona, but that was when he was a disciple of Barry Goldwater back in the 1960s.

He was passionate in calling for the execution of the Rosenbergs, calling the Justices, "a bunch of old women" if they lacked the courage to order their deaths. Let's see, what else did I mention in that post? Most of the memos and legal briefs regarding excesses such as wire-tappig and other covert activities were crafted while Rehnquist was an ambitious Assitant Attorney General in the Nixon administration. How well it suited some of his boss's ambitions. And then there was the Bush v Gore debacle, which, with it's blatant partisan overtones will always be a stain on Rehnquist's Court.

To be honest, I'm not sure how you missed all of these points the first time around, T2. If you wish to argue the issues further, reference any of the above, and I will be glad to respond. These are vital and important issues, and it should give us concern about the men/women we choose as the Chief Justice. These issues are at the heart of the debate, at least that is how I see it.


Edit: I stumbled on this piece this morning written by David Corn, and he makes many of the same points:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=19805

[ September 06, 2005, 16:39: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

For me, Roberts is an acceptable replacement for Rehnquist. I felt that Roberts was much more conservative than O'Connor, but now that he will be replacing Rehnquist, I think his nomination is appropriate. Being appointed Chief Justice really doesn't provide that much more power than an associate justice. It only gives him the power to appoint who will write the opinion of the side that he voted on. So if, for example, he voted with the majority, he can select who will write the majority opinion. However, if he voted with the minority, he would not get to select who writes the majority opinion.

Basically my feeling is that whoever Bush appoints to be O'Connor's replacement will be a more important selection than Roberts. If I were the Democrats I would confirm Roberts quickly, and hope that is seen as an olive branch to pick another moderate judge, rather than an invitation to pick a more conservative justice.