Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rehnquist's 'Lone Ranger' record leaves Bush something to shoot for
Townhall ^ | 9/12/05 | Phyllis Schlafly

Posted on 09/12/2005 11:17:06 PM PDT by Crackingham

William Rehnquist was the most unlikely of appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. He had no experience as a judge, and his boss, former President Richard Nixon, would embarrassingly refer to him as "Renchburg." But after serving more than 33 years on the Supreme Court, the last 19 as chief justice, Rehnquist proved to be among the greatest justices ever. He set the judicial standard at a very high level.

Rehnquist took his seat on the Supreme Court on Jan. 7, 1972. A mere two months later, he brazenly disagreed with all the other justices and issued his first lone dissent.

He went on to establish his reputation for dissenting alone, earning him the nickname "the Lone Ranger." Rehnquist was never one to seek accolades from the media or his colleagues, and penned more than 410 dissenting opinions over his marvelous career.

One of his early dissents, in 1973, was to a majority decision invalidating state laws allowing maintenance grants for nonpublic and religious schools in Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist. Rehnquist had joined a Supreme Court that was almost unanimously hostile to all things religious, as well as liberal in many other ways.

Nearly 30 years later, Rehnquist prevailed with his 5-4 decision in Zelman v. Simmons Harris upholding school vouchers that parents could use to attend religious schools. Rehnquist's view became mainstream, to the benefit of all Americans.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: rehnquist; schlafly; scotus

1 posted on 09/12/2005 11:17:06 PM PDT by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Rehnquist as much as Reagan, Goldwater and Nixon helped shape modern conservatism. He has left very big shoes to fill.


2 posted on 09/12/2005 11:26:29 PM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel (The Democratic Party-Jackass symbol, jackass leaders, jackass supporters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel

Watch out, some people will bash you for liking Nixon...


3 posted on 09/13/2005 12:08:23 AM PDT by Terpfen (http://www.pattonhq.com/unknowntext.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel; Terpfen

I'd rather bash on Goldwater. I wasn't around to see him in his heydey, but everything I've heard from him in the last several years has sounded pretty liberal, especially his take on abortion.


4 posted on 09/13/2005 12:59:36 AM PDT by xjcsa (The Kyoto Protocol is about as futile as sending seven maids with seven mops to rid a beach of sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
Nixon shaped conservatism like FDR. What is conservative about creating OSHA, EPA, wage and price controls? Or, do you just like him because he called himself a Republican?

Roberts is no Rehnquist.

Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.

See, his allegience is to stare decisis, not the constitution. In fact, the only time Roberts even mentions the constitution is when he referred to the Russian constitution.

Bush has not given us a justice "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas" and to top off the betrayal of his promise he made to conservatives, he has named Roberts chief justice.

The Roberts nomination needs to be defeated.

5 posted on 09/13/2005 3:01:03 AM PDT by Nephi (Roberts proves that Bush is his Daddy's globalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nephi

You are correct. He did not mention the Constitution, he did mention precedent and the "decisional process." Oh well. I'm about ready to go back to not paying attention to politics.


6 posted on 09/13/2005 3:44:45 AM PDT by Huck (Looting makes GREAT television.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
He had a LoneRanger record too???
7 posted on 09/13/2005 4:39:53 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As long as liberalism and I exist, neither one of us is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

.


8 posted on 09/13/2005 4:43:57 AM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa

Could I get your definition of "several"?


9 posted on 09/13/2005 5:53:51 AM PDT by tdscpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tdscpa
Could I get your definition of "several"?

Thirty?

10 posted on 09/13/2005 7:54:20 AM PDT by xjcsa (The Kyoto Protocol is about as futile as sending seven maids with seven mops to rid a beach of sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa

Goldwater wasn't a liberal. He was maybe a libertarian, but not a liberal. Have you read Conscience of a Conservative? Great book.


11 posted on 09/13/2005 9:17:13 AM PDT by mosquitobite (What we permit, we promote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mosquitobite

Yes, Goldwater was a libertarian above all. He was an ardent defender of liberty as one of his most famous quotations made clear. Goldwater was a great man who, unfortunately, in his very senior years made statements that appeared to undermine his conservative credentials. But, he forged the way for Reagan. I accept the common wisdom that he fell under the sway of the nurse who became his second wife.

Rehnquist was a great Chief Justice. Fair, an excellent administrator of the court and a champion of the principles of federalism that form the foundation of our government. He is only surpassed by his idol, John Marshall, who, unlike Rehnquist, was able to forge majorities and unanimity again and again even with Jeffersonian appointees to the Court.

As to Judge Roberts, he is a brilliant but mainstream jurist with conservative leanings from what we have seen.

What I look for most in a jurist is the ability to evaluate arguments and to apply principles of law to fact in a manner that is faithful to the Constitution. His statements about stare decisis are pretty standard. If you look at Supreme Court opinions, one could conclude the Court has always been engaged in correcting the decisions of earlier courts. It is a soft concrete on which the Court treads.

If I were on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would ask Judge Roberts what books are in his library and what books he thinks have influenced him the most. I would ask him what he thinks are the most important decisions of the Court in certain segments of time and why. I would also ask him about his judicial philosophy on the assignment of opinion writing. That is perhaps a better indicator of how he will confront problems 20 years hence than intricate questions about the Voting Rights Act.


12 posted on 09/13/2005 10:10:56 AM PDT by Pinetop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson