Posted on 09/03/2005 9:57:22 PM PDT by kellynla
Born in Wisconsin and schooled at Stanford, the man who set up his early legal practice in the land of Barry Goldwater will be remembered as much for his personal touch on the workings of the Supreme Court as the conservative legal path he charted.
William Hubbs Rehnquist's service on the nation's highest court during seven presidencies leaves a judicial legacy that many legal scholars say rivals that of predecessors John Marshall in the 19th century and Earl Warren in the 20th century.
Rehnquist accomplished this by leading what has been called a quiet revolution developed over many years. Supreme Court scholar David Yalof credits Rehnquist for ably moving the court in a conservative, consistent direction.
"He did it by choosing carefully the doctrine of judicial restraint," says Yalof, a constitutional law professor at the University of Connecticut. "You see it in the cases the court hears, and showing the way with his brand of leadership."
Supporter of states' rights Supreme Court analysts say Rehnquist's judicial legacy is wide-ranging. In the area of federalism, he consistently sided with states that were sued over violating congressional law, including age discrimination, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Violence Against Women Act. He guided the court to spare states some impositions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Brady gun control laws.
In the 1995 gun control case -- U.S. v. Lopez -- the high court reversed a federal law banning guns near local schools. Writing the majority opinion, Rehnquist said the Supreme Court had traditionally deferred to Congress, but said its power this time needed to be curbed, or else "there will never be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local."
Rehnquist also showed his flexibility in order to have the high court speak forcefully...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Roe v. Wade (1973), which based a woman's right to an abortion on the right to privacy.
United Steel Workers v. Weber (1979), where a white man sued his employer for reverse discrimination. The majority of the Supreme Court found the discrimination against whites did not violate the "spirit" of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and thereby was lawful."
R.I.P.
Good man, good American. God rest his soul. May his successor be as strong an advocate of the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.