Chief Justice Rehnquist dies, RIP

[Broken Glass Can]

Talk about timing. He dies three days before the Roberts hearings are to start.


RIP to a great Chief Justice.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Talk about timing. He dies two days before the Roberts hearings are to start.


RIP to a great Chief Justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes...

The hostile political climate will surely ratchet up a notch or two now...and I think that's an understatement.

[DVaut1]

The political implications of this are immense, given that the Bush administration is already going to have to juggle New Orleans and the Roberts nomination hearings; I assume the Bush administration might already have a short-list of possible nominees in place, as they've surely done much vetting of other candidates during the Roberts search. But I suspect the Bush administration (if only for communication/message simplicity) will likely try to delay the next nomination as long as possible.

Not only that, the question of who replaces Rehnquist as Chief Justice makes this discussion somewhat larger than the one surrounding the Roberts nomination. It will be interesting to see who Bush decides ought to replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice (perhaps Roberts, even).

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
Not only that, the question of who replaces Rhenquist as Chief Justice makes this discussion somewhat larger than the one surrounding the Roberts nomination.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would assume that the next longest serving justice would get the nod, maybe. I can't see Scalia, Thomas, or Ginsburg as the next chief justice, so it may very well go to stevens. THe supreme court is really gonna be shaken up over the next few years as Stevens and Ginsburg are not young people. Its gonna be very hard for Bush to push through a judge as conservative as Scalia or Thomas, so I really think that we are gonna see a justice along the lines of O'Connor, which might bring a problem in that the Court has been very indecisive in recent years, a good supreme court should lean one way and shold be more along the lines of 6-3 or 7-2

[Broken Glass Can]

Short List:


Luttig



(is that short enough for ya? /images/graemlins/wink.gif)

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I would assume that the next longest serving justice would get the nod, maybe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt this is how Bush will decide who should replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice.

[cadillac1234]

Bush should offer Sandra Day O'Connor the position (which has been rumoured to be a possibility if Rehnquist resigned), let the Senate fast track Roberts through and call it a draw.

I don't think Bush and our country can handle another controversy without having a major meltdown.

[SheetWise]

An interesting man.

3:1 Chief Justice will be Thomas.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
...a good supreme court should lean one way and shold be more along the lines of 6-3 or 7-2

[/ QUOTE ]
A good Supreme Court should read Constitutional Law.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...a good supreme court should lean one way and shold be more along the lines of 6-3 or 7-2

[/ QUOTE ]
A good Supreme Court should read Constitutional Law.

[/ QUOTE ]


kinda goes without saying. I just hope that Roe v Wade doesn't get overturn with the next two justices that get put in, and that 4th amendment rights start to take precedent again, cause needless to say that the patriot acts do spit in the face of the 4th(and 5th)

[Matty]

I'm pretty sure now is when you'll see Gonzalez get tapped.

Heaven help us all. What a [censored] horrible week. At least Pat Robertson's death prayers were answered.

[KDawgCometh]

as we all know, O'connor has already stepped down, and I don't see her going back just to be cheif justice

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
An interesting man.

3:1 Chief Justice will be Thomas.

[/ QUOTE ]


god help us if this happens

[Broken Glass Can]

I think Luttig is the recognized most brilliant brain of all the conservative not-too-old Circuit Court judges.

If Bush is interested in picking quality over ethnicity/gender or whatever, Luttig is the choice.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
as we all know, O'connor has already stepped down, and I don't see her going back just to be cheif justice

[/ QUOTE ]

She will remain on the court until her replacement is sworn in, but I agree, she is too smart to get conned into staying.

[ChipWrecked]

My wife thinks Scalia, but she's the politico in the family. I don't even know how the process works.

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
An interesting man.

3:1 Chief Justice will be Thomas.

[/ QUOTE ]

how much?

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
My wife thinks Scalia, but she's the politico in the family. I don't even know how the process works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most CJs have not been picked from the associate justices. Thomas is the only one young enough, but I'm sure he doesn't want another confirmation hearing.

I say there is about a 2% chance that Bush nominates someone already on the court.

He can pick anyone. Technically, they don't even have to be a lawyer.

[cadillac1234]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My wife thinks Scalia, but she's the politico in the family. I don't even know how the process works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most CJs have not been picked from the associate justices. Thomas is the only one young enough, but I'm sure he doesn't want another confirmation hearing.

I say there is about a 2% chance that Bush nominates someone already on the court.

He can pick anyone. Technically, they don't even have to be a lawyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear Michael Brown might be looking for a job soon and he's already an attorney.

Brown probably won't hear about the job openning until 2006 though /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Non_Comformist]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure now is when you'll see Gonzalez get tapped.

Heaven help us all. What a [censored] horrible week. At least Pat Robertson's death prayers were answered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Grey you are by far the most consistly awesome liberal on this forum.

keep up the good work please

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
RIP to a great Chief Justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rehnquist was one of the most shameless and thoroughly dishonest men ever to serve on the court. He deserves no more respect in death than he did in life.


q/q

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
I just hope that Roe v Wade doesn't get overturned

[/ QUOTE ]

Roe v Wade is meaningless. If the court overturned it tomorrow, the state law would still exist. In the end there would be some states more liberal (infanticide), and some more restrictive (first trimester). This would create the tragedy of some women having to cross state lines if they were slow to decide. The liberals simply keep this issue alive because they get a lot of mileage out of it.

[ QUOTE ]
... and that 4th amendment rights start to take precedent again ...

[/ QUOTE ]
The 4th Ammendment is only wounded -- the Court can make a big difference.

[ QUOTE ]
... the patriot acts do spit in the face of the 4th(and 5th).

[/ QUOTE ]
5th Ammendment rights died with the 16th Ammendment. Unless that is repealed, there is very little the court can do.

[SheetWise]

Justice Thomas writes the most coherent opinions I've read in over 20 years.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The liberals simply keep this issue alive because they get a lot of mileage out of it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Two things:

1) Sounds like a little more of the right-wing marginalization fetish to claim that 'liberals' can just 'keep issues alive'...I can think of alot of issues leftists would love to get on the table and have a national discourse about, but can't given THEIR (actual!) marginalization...and I think the right is more than willing to point how marginalized the left really is; so I question how they square that with the “liberals control all political dialogue” nonsense that they frequently spout…but I digress, I have a larger point:

2) There are clearly many people on the right getting tons and tons of mileage out of abortion.

[jokerthief]

There aren't enough votes to repeal roe vs wade with two pro life picks.

[cadillac1234]

Pat Robertson's prayer came true...

Too bad Pat didn't specify which Supreme Court judge he wanted to die and God does seem to have a helluva sense of humour

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
There are clearly many people on the right getting tons and tons of mileage out of abortion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. On the right, there are many people who have deep convictions -- but would lose state referendums to ban abortion, and they know it. It is kept alive as a principle, and most of the party has (reluctantly) accepted that limiting abortions is the objective. The right, in the form of Republicans, is actually very diverse in their opinions regarding abortion -- they tend to become monolithic when it comes to late term abortion.

The left, on the other hand, uses the fear of women losing their choice if RvW is overturned -- which they know is nonsense (abortion was legal in many states 30+ years ago before RvW). Politically it's a great issue for the left, because the fear of a ban on abortion mobilizes a lot of single issue voters who believe the lie.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
how much?

[/ QUOTE ]
I see you live in Denial.
What's friendly?

[FishHooks]

Considering he had the closest vote in history of supreme court members I doubt that even though I like him.

[Broken Glass Can]

(AP) WASHINGTON The White House said late Saturday the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist was “a tremendous loss for our nation” and issued a statement of condolence on behalf of President Bush.

Bush was notified about Rehnquist’s death shortly before 11 p.m. It will be up to the president to nominate Rehnquist’s successor on the Supreme Court.

“President Bush and Mrs. Bush are deeply saddened by the news” of Rehnquist’s death, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said. “It’s a tremendous loss for our nation.”

The president, after attending church services on Sunday, will make a statement about Rehnquist, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will consider Bush’s nominee as Rehnquist’s replacement, said the chief justice “served his country with honor, dignity and distinction for over 30 years.

He was grounded in his beliefs and was a staunch defender of an independent judiciary. People of all philosophies and viewpoints greatly respected Justice Rehnquist and will miss him.



<font color="red"> If Bush had acted sooner, Rehnquist would still be alive. </font> /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
...cause needless to say that the patriot acts do spit in the face of the 4th(and 5th)

[/ QUOTE ]

Id like to hear your reasoning. I have yet to have someone on this forum present a cogent argument supporting this theory.

[ACPlayer]

Why dont you take a couple of hours someday and argue that position passionately? A bit of research, an attempt at making a convincing case about something that you may not (at the moment) believe to be true. An interesting intellectual exercise.

I mean it as a serious suggestion, btw. Being able to argue all sides of an issue, now that is what I truly aspire to achieve.

Chief Justice Rehnquist was a true patriot. His life and dedication to his country will be truly missed.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
I have yet to have someone on this forum present a cogent argument supporting (the) theory (that the patriot acts spit in the face of the 4th.)

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Ammendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


[/ QUOTE ]
I see the problem primarily in banking regulations. Without economic freedom -- there is no freedom. The 16th Ammendment severely limited protection of the 4th -- the Patriot Act (along with the War on Drugs) is on the way to killing it.

Reports of Suspicious Activities - 12 CFR 21.11 requires every national bank to file a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) when they detect certain known or suspected violations of federal law or suspicious transactions related to a money laundering activity or a violation of the BSA. A SAR filing is required for any potential crimes: (1) involving insider abuse regardless of the dollar amount; (2) where there is an identifiable suspect and the transaction involves $5,000 or more; and (3) where there is no identifiable suspect and the transaction involves $25,000 or more. A SAR filing also is required in the case of suspicious activity that is indicative of potential money laundering or BSA violations and the transaction involves $5,000 or more. More ... (http://www.occ.treas.gov/BSA/BSARegs.htm)

[Bill Murphy]

Lemme guess, you're referring to WHR's memo during the Brown v BOE deliberations while he was a SCOTUS clerk, and his vote in Bush v Gore, right?

Otherwise, please explain.

[sam h]

Can Bush change on the fly and nominate Roberts as chief justice? How would this work? Roberts seems like he would make a pretty good chief.

[Bill Murphy]

[ QUOTE ]
Rehnquist's most important decisions came in 1995 in a case called United States v. Lopez and in a 2000 decision, Morrison v. United States.

Writing for the court in the Lopez case, Rehnquist said Congress could not use the Constitution's Commerce Clause — the basis of its power to regulate interstate commerce — to justify a law which made it a federal offense to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. The Lopez decision reversed a trend stretching back to the 1930's in which the Court had allowed Congress ever greater leeway in stretching the Commerce Clause to justify new federal powers. Defending the law, Clinton administration lawyers contended that the presence of firearms near schools posed a threat to teaching, which in turn resulted in a less productive work force. And that in turn jeopardized the American economy, they contended.

Rehnquist found this chain of reasoning far-fetched. "To uphold the Government's contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference" and thus "convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States," Rehnquist wrote. The gun law, he said, was in reality "a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with 'commerce' or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms.... The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might... substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce."

Similarly in the Morrison decision, Rehnquist and four other justices said that Congress had exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause when it created a federal right to sue in cases involving "a crime of violence motivated by gender." The alleged rape victim in that case could seek redress in state courts, but not in federal court, Rehnquist and the majority said.

Last June, Rehnquist's crusade for a restrictive reading of the Commerce Clause suffered a setback in a medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich. The majority, led by Justice John Marx Stalinvens, held that the federal government did have the power to prosecute those who grow marijuana even if they grow and use it entirely within a state. California had passed a law in 1996 allowing ill people to cultivate and use marijuana. The growing of a commodity meant for home consumption has a substantial effect on the supply and demand for that commodity nationwide, Stalinvens reasoned. Therefore California marijuana growers were liable under federal law.

Rehnquist joined Justice Sandra Day O'Connor(!/images/graemlins/shocked.gif!) in dissenting from the court's ruling. O'Connor argued that the principles which Rehnquist had set forth in the Lopez and Morrison decisions should prevail: "...the Constitution gives the federal government limited powers, not vast "police power" over virtually all activities within each state."

[/ QUOTE ]

Word. And don't even get me started on the Eminent Domain thing.

RIP to a truly great man. I didn't agree w/all his decisions, of course, but had great respect for his: overall legal &amp; historical knowledge; managerial skills; complete lack of ego or pomposity; Federalism crusade; and campaigns to keep the Judicial Branch strong, independent, and separate. Certainly, the SCOTUS bldg will one day bear his name.

May we all be as successful in our professional &amp; personal lives as the Chief was in his.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Lemme guess, you're referring to WHR's memo during the Brown v BOE deliberations while he was a SCOTUS clerk, and his vote in Bush v Gore, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm referring to virtually every opinion he ever authored. The man was a political hack. Worse, he both understood and embraced that role. Scalia at least tries to disguise his political role behind a ruse of "strict constructionism". Rehnquist didn't even have the sense of shame necessary to do that much.

[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise, please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get a casebook, start reading. It requires a lot of experience and a lot of study to begin to grasp the big picture as to what he was actually doing over his career on the court, and it's well beyond the scope of a poker forum like this.


q/q

On edit : based on your reply to BGC's previous comment, it's clear that you at least understand his attempts to roll back Commerce Clause jurisprudence to the radical right-wing activism of 1890-1936. I presume you also understand that this will eliminate nearly a century's worth of federal protections for American labor rights. In fact, based on your other replies on this thread, it is clear that you embrace this radical activist goal, and praise Rehnquist for advancing it. I hope others here take serious note of this fact.

[Bill Murphy]

[ QUOTE ]
I would assume that the next longest serving justice would get the nod, maybe. I can't see Scalia, Thomas, or Ginsburg as the next chief justice, so it may very well go to Stevens.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was confused by this, as there's no way Bush will elevate a commie like Stevens to Chief. Also, more CJ's have been direct appointments than elevations(~16 v 12), including Burger &amp; Warren. However(and I'd spaced this), should there be no new Chief confirmed when the next term starts in October, the longest tenured Assoociate Justice(Stevens) becomes acting Chief.

This actually bodes well for the "Roberts now becomes the nominee for Chief" scenario, but I'll start a new thread about that.

[Bill Murphy]

[ QUOTE ]
Get a casebook, start reading. It requires a lot of experience and a lot of study to begin to grasp the big picture as to what he was actually doing over his career on the court, and it's well beyond the scope of a poker forum like this.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely. I think this (http://fray.slate.msn.com/id/2125684/nav/tap1/) is an outstanding article, written by an experienced, qualified, and hardly conservative legal writer.

Here's another one (http://fray.slate.msn.com/id/2125685/nav/tap2/).

One thing I've noticed in all articles so far is the universal praise for WHR as "leader" of the Court in comparison to Burger.

[Bill Murphy]

As far as I know he can, and I think it's at least 50-50 that he will. Bush certainly wants "his" Chief in place by the start of the next term, or else Stevens will be acting Chief.

The Dems will scream that they need more time to prepare for the switch, but I bet Hatch &amp; Specter will ram it down.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
The Dems will scream that they need more time to prepare for the switch, but I bet Hatch &amp; Specter will ram it down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the Dems would like Roberts as chief a lot better than Scalia or Thomas

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An interesting man.

3:1 Chief Justice will be Thomas.

[/ QUOTE ]


god help us if this happens

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RIP to a great Chief Justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rehnquist was one of the most shameless and thoroughly dishonest men ever to serve on the court. He deserves no more respect in death than he did in life.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who disagrees with me is a liar, and a hack, and deserves to die, and is mean, and wants to eat babies, and whine whine whine.

[West]

Here are some other ones, albeit with a different tenor:

link (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&amp;pid=19805)

link (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050919/shapiro)

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
It requires a lot of experience and a lot of study to begin to grasp the big picture as to what he was actually doing over his career on the court, and it's well beyond the scope of a poker forum like this.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't support your position in a way for the people on this forum to understand it, then (I would suggest) your opinion is well founded.

Frankly, your response sounded like a major cop-out.