Master Index of Archived Threads


Breaking News - Chief Justice William Rehenquist Dead

ScarletKnight41 Sep 03 2005 11:25 PM

[url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/03/national/w200927D36.DTL]Justice Rehnquist Dead At Age 80[/url]

Nymr83 Sep 04 2005 09:43 AM

RIP Justice Rehnquist, you WILL be missed.

ScarletKnight41 Sep 04 2005 10:46 AM

My biggest memory involving Justice Rehnquist is an indirect one. D-Dad and I went to law school with his son Jim, who was a year behind us. D-Dad knew Jim better through law review, but I was in a class with Jim when I was a third year and he was a second year student. I can't remember the class, but the teacher was the same teacher I had for Contracts - a soft spoken, very decent person whom I really like (in fact, he is one of the people who wrote a grad school recommendation letter for me). During one class, some topic came up, and this very soft spoken teacher basically went into a tirade over the direction Supreme Court decisions on the topic had gone, and how legally faulty and immoral this direction was (I really wish I could remember the topic). Basically, everyone in the room knew that this professor was railing about Jim's father, and nobody would even look in Jim's direction. The reason that this sticks out in my memory so much is that it was so out of charactor for this particular professor to make a student feel uncomfortable, let alone in this kind of manner. Anyway, condolences to the Rehnquist family at this time.

rpackrat Sep 04 2005 10:37 PM

My condolences to the Rehnquist family, but my feelings about Justice Rehnquist's career are well summed up by this writer: [url]http://www.davidcorn.com/[/url]

Nymr83 Sep 05 2005 02:15 AM

Rehnquist was a great judge. He came in during a time when the court was essentially disregarding the constitution and making its own personal whims into law. Strict constructionalism is the way to go, we elect a legislature to make laws not a court. I pray that his successor (and justice O'Connors') will continue their legacy.

Spacemans Bong Sep 05 2005 06:31 AM

Nymr83 wrote: Rehnquist was a great judge. He came in during a time when the court was essentially disregarding the constitution and making its own personal whims into law. Strict constructionalism is the way to go, we elect a legislature to make laws not a court. I pray that his successor (and justice O'Connors') will continue their legacy. So the principle of judicial review should not apply? Okay, fine.

Rockin' Doc Sep 05 2005 09:51 AM

"I confess: I have a hard time saying William Rehnquist, rest in peace." Pure class. No need to attack a man before he's even buried simply becuase his political views differ from your own. I definitely did not agree with Judge Rehnquist on several of his positions, however, I can't think of a single justice for which that isn't true. Well, at least the site (davidcorn.com) is fair and unbiased. No agenda there. Such sites, whether democratic or republican, liberal or conservative, make me nervous. They often take on the tone that anyone that disagrees with their supported views are completely wrong and evil. Extreme self assurance in one's own personal convictions can be a dangerous thing if it is not tempered with a modicum of humility and an open minded willingness to compromise.

KC Sep 05 2005 10:11 AM

>>>Well, at least the site (davidcorn.com) is fair and unbiased.<<< If my laptop shorts out from the coffee I just spit all over it, I'm sending you the bill.

Nymr83 Sep 05 2005 10:45 AM

Spacemans Bong wrote: So the principle of judicial review should not apply? Okay, fine. judicial review shouldnt go beyond the scope of the constitution. certain things are simply not in there amd the courts have no business inventing things that arent. as far as that site goes....well we're back to the whole conversation of stupid internet reporters not needing credibility.

Nymr83 Sep 05 2005 10:50 AM

Just heard that Bush intends to elevate Roberts to chief justice if/when he is confirmed. I'd prefer elevation from within the court, probably of Clarence Thomas, but i understand the impulse to promote a relatively young guy so you know he'll be there for a long while.

KC Sep 05 2005 11:12 AM

>>>as far as that site goes....well we're back to the whole conversation of stupid internet reporters not needing credibility.<<< Uh, I think he's a little more than a stupid internet reporter.

Edgy DC Sep 05 2005 11:22 AM

Strange reading there.

Edgy DC Sep 05 2005 12:44 PM

Bam! Roberts just got re-nominated to be chief justice.

Nymr83 Sep 05 2005 01:02 PM

i posted that 2 hours ago. it makes administrative sense, in that o'connor says she wont step down until her replacement is named, thus robert's nomination will allow a full court for the new term in october. i still prefer promoting from within though.

Frayed Knot Sep 05 2005 01:28 PM

From what I understand picking the chief by elevating from within the court has tended to be the exception rather than the rule (although Rehnquist was) so installing Roberts straight to the head chair would certainly be nothing unusual. Theoretically it shouldn't make all that much difference. The chief simply serves as the first amongst equals and is technically the most senior of the justices even if he/she's the newest. John Paul Stevens - a Ford appointee - is temporarily the most senior judge of the seven remaining.

Nymr83 Sep 05 2005 01:44 PM

well, the chief justice controls who writes the majority decision amongst other things. i like the idea of promotion from within only because it must be overwhelming enough to be thrust into this job without being given the additional duties of chief justice as well.

Edgy DC Sep 05 2005 05:40 PM

Nonetheless, many have handled it. Moreover, if Roberts is truly the perfect nominee for Bush, he might as well play that card for all it's worth.

Frayed Knot Sep 05 2005 05:56 PM

Justice Lewis Powell was supposed to be on the list to be considered to replace retiring chief Earl Warren until he met with Nixon beforehand to take himself out of the running because (among other reasons) he thought that the court was historically weaker during those periods when an associate judge had been elevated to CJ. Not really sure what his evidence was to support that view. "Outsider" Warren Berger wound up as the choice. And my only real point is that if Roberts is qualified to be an associate then you figure he'd be the same as chief. Of course there are already rumblings that this will set the nomination process back so some Senators can look at him really really closely (as opposed to just really closely I guess) but unless there's some notion that he'll make a great justice but will somehow be utterly divisive as a leader of justices it all seems like a bunch of posturing to me.

Nymr83 Sep 05 2005 09:53 PM

obviously it all does come down to posturing anyway. judicial appointments have always been an area where the parties can screw around and try to throw their weight around. Republicans blocked Clinton nominees, Democrats blocked Bush nominees and so on and so on as far back as you'd like to go.

Frayed Knot Sep 05 2005 10:27 PM

I wonder if it's getting worse though; if the Bork affair didn't start a new era of opposing nominees - or making motions as if opposing them - simply for the sake of looking "tough" for your side? Maybe it was the exception and not the rule, but when Nixon - newly in office after a fairly close election - nominated Warren Burger to fill the CJ position, the whole process from nomination to confirmation by the entire Senate took all of 18 days.

Willets Point Sep 05 2005 10:31 PM

RIP Chief Justice Rehnquist. Just out curiousity, if a man spends his career wearing all black among colleagues who wear all-black, would it be appropriate to wear something colorful to his funeral just for a change of pace? (note: the above is not a political statement, just a sample of my quirky - some may say tasteless - sense of humor).

MFS62 Sep 06 2005 08:02 AM

WP, don't be sorry. It was kind of funny. We know you're a little weird. And that's all part of your charm. :) Later

rpackrat Sep 06 2005 03:14 PM

]judicial review shouldnt go beyond the scope of the constitution. certain things are simply not in there amd the courts have no business inventing things that arent. Right. Because all the Court does is interpret the constitution, and because it's always crystal clear what the constitution means as applied to a particular set of facts. As the old saying goes: "Liberal judges legislate from the bench and it's called 'judicial activism'; conservative judges liegislate from the bench and it's called 'original intent.'" ] as far as that site goes....well we're back to the whole conversation of stupid internet reporters not needing credibility. Which might be relevant if David Corn was merely a "stupid internet reporter." But, alas: "David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation, the oldest political weekly in America, and a Fox News Channel contributor. He writes on a host of subjects, including politics, the White House, Congress, and the national security establishment. He has broken stories on George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Colin Powell, Rush Limbaugh, Enron, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon, and other Washington players and institutions. He currently writes a web column for The Nation called "Capital Games". He has written for The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Boston Globe, Newsday, Harper's, The New Republic, Mother Jones, The Washington Monthly, the LA Weekly, the Village Voice, Slate, Salon, TomPaine.com, Alternet.org, and many other publications. His first novel, Deep Background, a political thriller, was published by St. Martin's Press in 1999. The Washington Post said it is "brimming with gusto....As clean and steely as an icy Pinot Grigio....[An] exceptional thriller." The Los Angeles Times called it "a slaughterhouse scorcher of a book you don't want to put down" and named it one of the best novels of the year. The New York Times said, "You can either read now or wait to see the movie....Crowded with fictional twists and revelations." The Chicago Tribune noted, "This dark, impressive political thriller...is a top-notch piece of fiction, thoughtful and compelling." PBS anchor Jim Lehrer observed that Deep Background is "a Washington novel with everything. It's a page-turning thriller from first word to last....that brings some of the worst parts of Washington vividly alive." Corn was a contributor to Unusual Suspects, an anthology of mystery and crime fiction (Vintage/Black Lizard, 1996). His short story "My Murder" was nominated for a 1997 Edgar Allan Poe Award by the Mystery Writers of America. The story was republished in The Year's 25 Finest Crime and Mystery Stories (Carroll & Graf, 1997). He is the author of the biography Blond Ghost: Ted Shackley and the CIA's Crusades (Simon & Schuster, 1994). The Washington Monthly called Blond Ghost "an amazing compendium of CIA fact and lore." The Washington Post noted that this biography "deserves a space on that small shelf of worthwhile books about the agency." The New York Times termed it "a scorchingly critical account of an enigmatic figure who for two decades ran some of the agency's most important, and most controversial, covert operations." Corn has long been a commentator on television and radio and has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Crossfire, The Capital Gang, Fox News Sunday, Washington Week in Review, The McLaughlin Group, Hardball, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, and many other shows. He is a regular on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show and To The Point and has contributed commentary to NPR, BBC Radio, and CBC Radio. He has been a guest on scores of call-in radio programs. Corn is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Brown University."

rpackrat Sep 06 2005 03:17 PM

]Well, at least the site (davidcorn.com) is fair and unbiased. No agenda there. Considering that the site is a personal blog and does not purport to offer anything more than the author's personal opinions, supported by the reasons for those opinions, why do you have a problem with that?

Rockin' Doc Sep 06 2005 04:34 PM

rpackrat - "Considering that the site is a personal blog and does not purport to offer anything more than the author's personal opinions, supported by the reasons for those opinions, why do you have a problem with that?" David Corn is obviously free to state his opinions, as are all of us. I thought that I had made my feelings about that site, as well as others, pretty clear in my earlier post when I wrote: Such sites, whether democratic or republican, liberal or conservative, make me nervous. They often take on the tone that anyone that disagrees with their supported views are completely wrong and evil. Extreme self assurance in one's own personal convictions can be a dangerous thing if it is not tempered with a modicum of humility and an open minded willingness to compromise.

seawolf17 Sep 06 2005 04:52 PM

Hey! Now that there are two openings, perhaps the esteemed Mr. Bush will clear up his earlier oversight and nominate me for the other opening!

Willets Point Sep 06 2005 04:52 PM

Ooh, I'm all behind a Justice Seawolf campaign.

Vic Sage Sep 06 2005 05:03 PM

The Supreme Court's purpose is not only to interpret the constitution (as if that is a self-defining phrase). It also has a structural purpose. It is one of 3 branches of a federal government, designed specifically as a series of checks and balances, that works to prevent tyranny by (a) an all-powerful executive branch, or by (b) a majority in the legislature attempting to legislate away the rights of the minority. The Court is the last line of defense for We, the people. It is imperative that our countyr not become a dictatorship of the majority. Minority voices need to be heard and respected, and there seems to be no place in our current government for that. The Court remains the last bulwark against oppression of the minority, and that is why it is so important for the Legislature to challenge the Executive over the Judiciary. As we move forward into the 21st century, there is going to continue to be governmental action on lots of issues that were not contemplated by the founding fathers or specifically articulated within the 4 corners of the Constitution. In order for the document to continue to have any kind of realistic meaning, it needs to be understood (both by the court and by the public) as a living text, and not simply as a crumbling parchment defined by the dead hands of white male christian property owners from 230 years past. And the founding fathers themselves knew this to be true, because the Constitution is self-limiting. Through the 9th and 10th amendments, they expressed the view that the constitution was not an exhaustive list of specified rights, and there were rights that remained with the people, inevitably leaving open room for growth, interpretation. The "original intent" was to create A LIVING DOCUMENT that would grow with the nation, not a fundamentalist laundry list of "thou shalt"s and "thou shalt not"s. They were vehemently opposed to that kind of doctrinism. ]Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ]Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. So it always startles me when "original intent" is cited as the only appropriate source of constitutional jurisprudence by those who may ignore the original intent of the founding fathers, as acknowledged not only in these amendments but from the whole spirit of the document. People get upset with the court when it overturns legislation, but if it didn't, it would simply be a rubber stamp and would no longer fulfill its structural mandate to check the power of the other branches of govt.

rpackrat Sep 06 2005 06:33 PM

]David Corn is obviously free to state his opinions, as are all of us. I thought that I had made my feelings about that site, as well as others, pretty clear in my earlier post when I wrote: Such sites, whether democratic or republican, liberal or conservative, make me nervous. They often take on the tone that anyone that disagrees with their supported views are completely wrong and evil. Extreme self assurance in one's own personal convictions can be a dangerous thing if it is not tempered with a modicum of humility and an open minded willingness to compromise. Wow, it's really big of you to concede that Corn is free to state his opinions. I'm just wondering: where in that opinion piece doe Corn state or imply that anyone who disagrees with is completely wrong and evil? Because I've read the piece a number of times and I sure didn't see it.