Posted on 09/07/2005 2:31:10 PM PDT by Crackingham
Chief Justice Rehnquist, 80, has died. With the recent retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, the composition of the nation’s highest court is about to undergo a profound change. The result could effect on issues as pervasive as affirmative action, the level of separation between church and state, gun control, and abortion rights.
President Bush has consistently said that he favors Justices who tend toward protecting state rights and restricting national power. Rightly so. Unelected and unaccountable judges ought not be given the power to create law. At the same time, we cannot deny that all judicial decisions are the product of value judgments. The most important passages of the constitution are vaguely worded and subject to interpretation. The answer of where to draw the line between individual autonomy and the need for federal standards is bound to vary with each individual judge’s sense of equity. As Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice, William O. Douglas, once observed, “at the constitutional level, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections.”
So as a new court prepares to confront the dominant constitutional dramas of our day, a crucial question is to what degree should judges allow their decisions to be influenced by notions of personal equity? On one end of the spectrum is the moral theorizing of the Warren Court which used vague notions of personal autonomy to create sweeping constitutional rights from thin air (Roe vs. Wade is the prototypical case). Most observers are now in agreement that the ideological sweeps of the Warren Court violated important notions of judicial self restraint. Partly in response to the Warren Court, judges now shy away from moral theorizing.
Indeed, part of Justice Rehnquist’s legacy will undoubtedly be his role in stemming the grand liberal theorizing of the court in the 1960s to the 70s. During his two decade tenure as chief justice, Rehnquist steered the court toward the right. By breathing life into the tenth amendment and peeling back the commerce clause, Rehnquist slowly but surely limited the power of the federal government and reserved a sphere of influence for the states and “the people”.
Does anybody think Stevens will retire during a Republican presidency?
I have a question for informed freepers. Just how much significance does the Chief Justice have? He doesn't have a greater voice does he? His vote still only counts as one vote. Now, don't they all have to vote on which cases to take? So, just what is the significance of that role, other than having organizational/leadership duties? Does the CJ have more power over which cases the court takes or any other significant power that I don't know about?
I'd love to see Souter leave. He's an embarassment to Republicans everywhere.
Nope. Neither he, Ginsburge, nor Souter. They'll hang on until death or a Democrat presidency occurs.
The main substantive power the Chief has is the ability to assign opinion-writing to a particular justice in a case. That matters but it's not the biggest deal in the world.
Informally, the position offers the much greater possibility of exerting real leadership over the Court. That's up to the individual Chief as to how they actually do that. Historically, some have been total failures. Two former Chiefs who were very successful in turning their positions into strong leadership of the entire Court were John Marshall and Earl Warren. Whether or not Roberts will be able to do that really comes down to own his personal qualities.
If Karl Rove has his way they will all retire during a Republican Presidency.
Expect one of three seats to be filled, yielding seven justices. The Senate will filibuster the other two until the next recess, at which time Bush will appoint two more members. Looks to be a high old time on the Court.
They hold only minor sway. The post is largely of administrative and ceremonial import.
http://www.answers.com/topic/chief-justice-of-the-united-states
I suppose the honorable thing to hope for, then, is several more Republican administrations. Wait them out.
Very helpful. Thanks.
Are you saying Bush will make recess appointments to the court?
Actually, Judge Sandra Day O'Connor stated she would stay on until her replacement is confirmed. By delaying Judge Roberts' confirmation, Teddy "The Swimmer" Kennedy and "Up" Chuck Shumer have allowed the President to withdraw his nomination to O'Connor's seat keeping her on the bench for a while longer -- maybe an entire term the way the DemonRATS are operating -- and to nominate Judge Roberts, who is not yet 51, as the Chief Justice.
Had the idiots on the left side of the Senate simply confirmed Roberts, the president would have been unlikely to nominate him and then nominate yet another replacement. Since the President would likely have not found another 50-year-old jurist with Roberts' qualifications, the DemonRATS all but guaranteed the Chief Justice will be a young man rather than an older individual which they undoubtedly would have preferred. Once again, the "brilliant" DemonRATS were outmaneuvered by a man they consider "the village idiot".
I see a lot of cars around here (Massghanistan) with the rather nasty bumper sticker: "Some village in Texas is missing its idiot." My response is: "I know of two villages in Massaghanistan that know where their idiots are."
Recess appointments are only useful for administration positions where the office holder servers at the pleasure of the President. Such people are routinely replaced at the beginning of new Presidential administrations.
Recess appointments are counter-productive for lifetime federal judgeships and appointments to the Supreme Court. A recess appointment would expire just as a new administration comes into office. The new President would then get to appoint a Supreme Court Justice for life. That is why there is no benefit worth having in using recess appointments for judges.
Nice... I hope it doesn't turn out that way.
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.