Chief Justice Rehnquist dies, RIP

[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 ...

[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(![img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]!) 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 is an outstanding article, written by an experienced, qualified, and hardly conservative legal writer.

Here's another one.

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.