Courtesy of Filibuster Cartoons.
Posted on 11/21/2004 3:18:33 PM PST by Ed Current
WASHINGTON - Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist’s health is shrouded in mystery, the extent of his thyroid cancer a closely guarded secret. Several coming events could give the public an idea about the seriousness of his condition.
Since announcing his illness in a statement on Oct. 25, the 80-year-old Rehnquist has run the nation’s highest court from his home in suburban Virginia.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
We need judicial term limits. 10 years and you are out. It is idiotic for this fossil to be making decisions that affect the lives of us all.
It will be very sad indeed if he is not able to do the inauguration thing. Worst still if he tries and his voice is all messed up and he coughs up blood. Yikes.
If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve. The Avalon Project : President Jackson's Veto Message Regarding ...
A good example of why term limits for an unelected Judiciary, that is never answerable to the people, should be examined.
He's a sick puppy, but he's done us right for a lot of years. I hope he makes the inaugural, but that might be a lot.
Brennan and Thurgood Marshall were senile for years on the court. Their law clerks voted and wrote their opinions for them based on prior decisions and judicial philosophies. As they say, the Supreme Court is where the finest judicial minds in the nation are gathered to serve as clerks.
This "fossil" as you call it probably has more intelligence, wisdom and knowledge in his "pinky" than you have in your entire brain. How old are you? your 20's?
Since the Judiciary is one of three co-equal branches of government this statement is true.
But, this statement presupposes that the Congress and the Executive will assert their constitutional authority.
An activist Judiciary, that claims judicial review over all legislation, cannot take root when it's authority is challenged by an assertive Legislature and Executive.
But in Douglas's case (as the MSNBC article notes), the other justices just quit counting his vote. If Brennan or Marshall's vote would have decided any case, I'm sure they did the same for them.
I refuse to join in the speculation regarding C.J. Rehnquist's health. There is no indication that his mind is affected - when it is time to do something, he will do it. He is a very proud man and would not want his tenure on the court to be clouded.
I think we should look at term limits too. Average life expectancy is getting set to increase substantially with things such as stem cell research and nanotechnology.
But ya, don't badmouth Rehnquist, he's one of the good justices who actually thinks the constitution means what it says.
Except that this eighty year-old fossil has more brains in his little finger than most of the rest of us combined.
Perhaps so, but these "fine minds" are still human and are in a position to do great good or great harm.
I'd rather have those "great minds" publicly in the Legislature than closeted in the Judiciary.
BUT, to prevent further corruption of our Constitution, I believe that no Government office holder should be allowed to serve more than 8 years. This will prevent bribery from lobbyists, and other PACs, thus putting the direction of Gov't in hands of a few but powerful and rich groups of people to sway as they wish.
Don't include me in the we. The 'fossil' has done and until no longer in the court I suspect will do a superior job!
Thanks for using the word 'fossil'! It was used recently in a great article by V.D. Hanson about Liberals/Europeans, why they hate us...as in 'Fossilized Leftist Elitists'. I had the notion that he'd said 'ossified'. Maybe he did? At any rate plan to use phrase next time I email my ossified/fossil-brained Liberal Elitist idiot son in NZ.
Your vicious comment about Chief Justice Rehnquist is beneath the dignity of intelligent discussion.
Mr. Rehnquist has probably done more to save this country than anyone in my lifetime except Ronald Reagan. Nor has he shown any sign of diminished mental capacity. So your comment is not only vicious, it is factually absurd.
Even if you have an intelligent point to make against Rehnquist, right now it would be far more appropriate
to pray for the man.
Is there an advantage or disadvantage to having one-hundred year old judges on the High Court?
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.