Posted on 09/05/2005 4:01:44 PM PDT by RWR8189
WILLIAM H. Rehnquist was one of the great chief justices in American history. Over the last three decades, he moved the Supreme Court in a more conservative direction, advancing states' rights, expanding police powers and returning the country to its Tocquevillian roots. But in recent years his colleagues have handed him a series of setbacks in areas dear to him — including religion, property rights, federalism and capital punishment — signaling that perhaps the time had come for fresh leadership.
Leading the court is a notorious challenge. Justices are a famously independent bunch. A chief justice cannot order his colleagues to vote one way or the other; he cannot hire them, fire them or change their salaries. His only real power consists of speaking first at the internal conference where they vote on cases, and assigning writing duties when he is in the majority. The court functions like nine little law firms where, as Justice Felix Frankfurter once said, each justice "is his own sovereign." Or perhaps, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it more cynically, the court is more like "nine scorpions in a bottle."
Nevertheless, some have managed to exercise leadership. Our nation's greatest chief justice, John Marshall, convinced his colleagues in the early 1800s to unify behind opinions establishing judicial review, the supremacy of federal law and the creation of national institutions such as the federal bank. Chief Justice Earl Warren, a former California governor, brought the court together in the 1950s and 1960s to unanimously strike down segregation and to expand protections for criminal defendants.
Rehnquist will be remembered as one of the great chief justices because he, too, moved the court in his direction.
Before he became chief, Rehnquist was known as the "Lone Ranger" for his solitary dissents. Two decades later, many of those
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
..in their dreams.
Just wondering, but what could stop a Chief Justice from ordering the other Justices from being locked into broom closets in the Supreme Court building?
Who Yoo?
I'm hoping the "Barf Alert" was implied.
Bold and/or all caps is considered acceptable here on FR for such content...
unless of course agreement, rather, is the implication.
The courts are almost guaranteed to stay as they are, at best, which is left of center or move further to the left because Bush appears to have no intention of keeping his campaign promise and because the Republicans in the Senate are spineless losers.
I suppose your thinking is that if Democrats aren't trying to do to him what they did the Clarence Thomas, he must not be conservative enough. I'm willing to wait and see. I'd hope that Bush would get vindictive with the Democrats and RINOS if Roberts got "borked", but I don't see it happening.
I so agree that his named second nominee is...oh wait he hasn't nominated anyone yet.
A little presumptuous don't you think?
Are you going to be here making excuses of the next justice isn't an originalist with a proven track record and telling us to blind trust Bush?
There's a difference in reviewing a justice's performance since confirmation as opposed to presuming that an unknown candidate will reflect those 'Publican appointees that went off the road.
And with Roberts, as is the reality of the situation, we have no definite answer for at least a year or two. It seems silly to not give a benefit of the doubt to W since we pretty much have no choice.
There's a difference in reviewing a justice's performance since confirmation as opposed to presuming that an unknown candidate will reflect those 'Publican appointees that went off the road.
And with Roberts, as is the reality of the situation, we have no definite answer for at least a year or two. It seems silly to not give a benefit of the doubt to W since we pretty much have no choice.
Bush has appointed Brown, Owens, Pryor and nominated Pickering and Estrada. These judges, if you are willing to suspend Bush bashing for a minute, are very conservative, very restrained, originalists. Thus, Bush has already established a sterling track record of judicial appointments. Roberts is a partisan Reaganite who ridiculed liberals every chance he got. If you actually think he will turn out to be another Souter, I would recommend you go back and re-acquaint yourself with Souter. I can guarantee you here and now that Roberts will NOT turn into a Souter.
After seeing the way Roberts dresses his children, do you really think he is another Souter?
The point isn't that we blindly trust Bush or not. There isn't much we can do about it one way or another, except make suggestions in letters or phone calls.
And I don't know about anyone else, but in REAL LIFE I have NEVER blindly trusted anyone for that matter, politician or otherwise. Even the best of us make mistakes.
"returning the country to its Tocquevillian roots."
Hey Yoo dude, this "tocquevillian" crap is an old trick. Use words like this and they'll think I'm brilliant.
Dude, you aint.
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.