« "A Single, Lonely Piece of Equipment" | Main | You Can't Cross-Examine A Hurricane »
September 3, 2005
CJ Rehnquist Dies.
Posted by Eric at September 3, 2005 11:37 PM
Comments
With Justice Roberts looming on the horizon, it's at least comforting to know that Rehnquist probably spent the last week of his life watching scenes of the kind of America he did so much to create on the TV in his hospital room.
Posted by: Dave at September 4, 2005 2:09 AM
Classy post.
Posted by: Barry at September 4, 2005 9:49 AM
Yeah, Dave. You don't need to spew that kind of rubbish. Don't speak ill of the dead.
You can't be a successful Chief Justice (and Rehnquist was) without being willing to let go to at least some degree of your own inner desires relating to the law. He did.
For the Chief, collegiality is more important than ideology. You have to be pleasant, and accommodate disparate viewpoints. He did.
He worked hard to build consensus.
Clarence Thomas would be a DISASTER as Chief Justice. Not because of his views (that's what most good liberals would think), but because of his inability to temper them in order to form consensus.
Scalia would be slightly more attentive to precedent but only somewhat so. The past court's decisions (unless extreme) do matter (heck, all conservatives should agree to that, by definition!).
For example, Rehnquist moved from being an opponent of Miranda to a [I'm simplifying] supporter. That was probably the right decision. Miranda was *cough* from a conservative perspective an imperfect constitutional decision. But it become solidly codified in all police forces.
Roberts is young (50), has a sense of humour, is conservative but not obviously doctrinaire... etc. (If he said Bob Jones should be told to 'stick his head in a bucket of water', more power to him.)
Barring a bombshell, IMO, he's a good choice for Chief Justice from any perspective.
Holmwood
Posted by: Holmwood at September 5, 2005 6:59 PM
Yeah, Dave, what's the matter with you? Rehnquist was so dedicated to the law he managed to find a way to write an opinion holding, in a capital case, that the defendant's innocence was irrelevant.
Barry
Posted by: Barry Winston at September 6, 2005 1:16 PM
Scalia would be slightly more attentive to precedent but only somewhat so. The past court's decisions (unless extreme) do matter (heck, all conservatives should agree to that, by definition!).
Posted by: Marry at January 2, 2006 4:55 AM