Dean's World

Oh, man. This will set the wankers on both sides frothing to a fare-thee-well.

RIP William Rehnquist.

Kevin,

While I agree on what he should have done, I also understand the powerful mix of pride and fear and determination that can make a sick person refuse to admit his limitations even when others can see them. As human foibles go, this one gets my sympathies. The illness and fear can be overwhelming, so I understand why someone might try to cling to normalcy long after it has actually fled.

Chief Justice Rehnquist has been a fixture of government since my childhood. I daresay that he and Chairman Greenspan have more career longevity and have been involved in more national policy decisions than any of the Administrations and Congresses that have passed during their tenures. He will be missed.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, buckle in. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

I think this will make the Roberts hearings go a little quicker.

RIP Justice Rehnquist.

That said: I suspect that Scott may be right. I think it's 50/50--this either turns into a gigantic sh*tstorm or it goes fast because Senate Democrats realize they can't possibly sustain an endless fight against two nominees. One, okay, but to make the case that both nominees are complete disasters and must be stopped at all costs? There's really no way they're going to look good trying that.

Especially if the President picks a minority woman.

The interesting thing here is we could have either two or three confirmation battles here, depending on how the President plays it. Because if he wants, he can nominate a sitting justice for Chief Justice.

MSE, did I do my math wrong? The artcle linked said:

Rehnquist was appointed to the Supreme Court as an associate justice in 1971 by President Nixon and took his seat on Jan. 7, 1982. He was elevated to chief justice by President Reagan in 1986.

I just added some speculation to a show/hide block above.

ahh, good catch. its probable that Yahoo/AP has a typo for the latter date.

FWIW, I have believed all along that Rehnquist was prepared to retire, but the Administration asked him to delay until after Roberts was confirmed. After that confirmation, with its 60-67 affirmative votes, Roberts could have been nominated to replace Rehnquist as CJ, and it would be difficult for any substantive opposition. Roberts was a former clerk for Rehnquist, and they were close. Roberts elevation to CJ makes sense in many ways--fundamentally conservative, relatively young, very talented writer and a clear, concise thinker, strong organizational skills, and an even demeanor. I don't think the Administration wanted to fight two confirmation battles at once. As for Rehnquist, his legacy will be debated. For me, it says a lot about the man that he continued to work effectively up until last Thursday or Friday, even though he was dealing with terminal thyroid cancer.

Very sad, this passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. I will miss him. I feel for his loved ones. Bless his soul in the hereafter. He was, at the very least, an extremely interesting Chief Justice.

If you're as old as I am, you may remember the controversy over his nomination to the Supreme Court by President Nixon in 1971, and, later, his nomination to the postion of Chief Justice by President Reagan. He was extremely controversial. Ayn Rand wrote a very interesting essay on that controversy, "The Disfranchisement of the Right" (The Ayn Rand Letter, December 20, 1971). The tactics of the Left have not changed much since then, except for the addition of smears relating to alleged sexual proclivities. A prospective Judge or Justice should be judged solely on the basis of the actual ideas he or she holds, not on extraneous considerations or nonsense.

I completely support Judge John Roberts, based on everything I know about him (and his enemies), and I also think that Justice Clarence Thomas deserves the position of Chief Justice, based on his record so far.

Me too, Casey. I always thought justice Thomas was a bright man. What happened was that during the monumental battles over his senate confirmation back in the Bush I era, his liberal detractors jammed him up tight against a wall with their lies about Anita Hill. At that point, Thomas had no option but to come out fighting and you could also see that he was fighting mad as well. After that, he made it a point to keep his mouth shut and just give written opinions on things confined to court cases. And he does that well.

Now the liberals can no longer easily attack him without sliding into outright race hatred. Which I always thought was partially behind what Thomas went through. For some time, I have thought liberal leftists will frequently drool all over african-American women, but will only give a fair break to african-American men who not only sing their tune, but more importantly to some of them, allow liberal-leftist whites to dominate the policies of african-American organizations of many kinds.

My theory is that liberals think african-American men are too inferior to make it on their own according the standard rules of american society. Thus the need for affirmative action policies and a social welfare system that not only costs everybody a lot of wasted money, but keeps african-Americans chained up in a new kind of slavery from which one can escape only by means of the underground railroad of self-willed and self-made independence.

Which can never be easy for people raised from the cradle to the grave to assume the dual role of clients and victims of a vast social welfare system. And so my respect for african-Americans in particular who escape from that particular gulag archipelago of 21st century slaver is all the greater than it would be for anyone else.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI