Justice Rehnquist, Dead and Gone [Archive]

Bob S.

09-04-2005, 02:20 PM

One of the things I have heard about him and his career in the SC was that he fell on the side of State's Rights.

It is always sad when someone dies. But Stuart, you ask for comments on his passing, well your comments are rude. Why post a nickname such as "Billy" when it is more respectable for a Justice of the SC and that of the recently deceased to refer to them by their full first name. And why add the word "Gone" in the title? Dead would have been sufficient.

Bob S.

S.M.A.

09-04-2005, 05:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
One of the things I have heard about him and his career in the SC was that he fell on the side of State's Rights.

It is always sad when someone dies. But Stuart, you ask for comments on his passing, well your comments are rude. Why post a nickname such as "Billy" when it is more respectable for a Justice of the SC and that of the recently deceased to refer to them by their full first name. And why add the word "Gone" in the title? Dead would have been sufficient. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My apologies. I guess my attempt to grab attention backfired.

Justice Rehnquist did an outstanding job, even though I cannot say that I agreed with most of his views. He did believe in state's right, except during the 2000 election, which I think a lot of people are still smarting over.

Stuart http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

steve-o

09-05-2005, 03:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Billy Rehnquist, Dead and Gone </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhkay, he was off-the-charts conserservative and (seemingly) unapologetically against any form of equal rights/affirmative rights... but William H. Rehnquist was the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, so to call him "Billy" etc.. seems unappropriate and pretty disrespectful.

my two cents.
--s

Qikdraw

09-05-2005, 04:46 PM

Bush wants Roberts to be Cheif Justice now...

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

09-05-2005, 04:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Bush wants Roberts to be Cheif Justice now...

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wonderful. He sounds like a solid choice. Plus it cuts out another confirmation process.

Captain Zen

09-05-2005, 10:53 PM

My wellmeant and deep condolences for the deceased. That his righteousness may endure.

K O, your answer was soooo expected! No Zen there, knocked out with one stroke of the keyboard.
Of one thing we all can be sure the one who takes the place of The Honorable Judge Renquist will be his opposite and so: say bye bye.... Freedom, bye bye...

S.M.A.

09-06-2005, 06:31 PM

My attempt at being irreverent only resulted in more negative feedback, so I changed the title of the thread. I apologize again for anyone who was offended.

I completely disagree with Bush's choice of John Roberts as Chief Justice. He would make a dang fine Associate Justice, but I just can't picture him leading the court in this point in time. Personally, I would go with Antonin Scalia as Chief Justice; even though he's a head-butter and a hard-line conservative, he has the experience and capability to lead the court. My second choice would be John Paul Stevens, even though at 87 he's far and away the oldest member of the court.

Stuart http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Bob S.

09-06-2005, 07:26 PM

"My apologies. I guess my attempt to grab attention backfired."

Thank you for understanding. I just think that respect should be paid for the deceased. Disagree with his views, actions, etc. but allow the deceased the dignity of addressing him correctly.

"Bush wants Roberts to be Cheif Justice now..."

Yes, Qik. Along with what Kirk mentioned, a couple reasons for Bush's reasoning.

1) Roberts is a conservative replacing a conservative. It will be an easier sell than when he was replacing moderate O'Connor.

2) Roberts knows all of the Justices (the remaining 5) as he was Rehnquist's assistant.

"Of one thing we all can be sure the one who takes the place of The Honorable Judge Renquist will be his opposite"

How? In Roberts' case, both parties have found things to hate him for. Heck, he helped in a case for the side of gay rights and argued in a case for anti-abortion opponents.

But here's hoping he doesn't have an Anita Hill hiding.

Bob S.

BackpackerBrian

09-06-2005, 08:08 PM

Does this mean that God listens to conservative Christian Pat Robertson??

Man are we in trouble now . . . .

HereticChick

09-07-2005, 02:27 AM

I don't like the fact that the man has never been on the supreme court and has no experience, yet they're going to make him CHIEF justice? He's only 50 years old! We're screwed, seriously screwed.

Gecko

09-07-2005, 05:33 AM

Actually, HereticChick, there have only been two Chief Justices that were picked from the Associates. Rehnquist was one and I don't recall the other offhand. All other Chief Justices have been picked from outside the SC.

missouriboy

09-07-2005, 06:08 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">argued in a case for anti-abortion opponents. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So, is an anti-abortion opponent actually pro-abortion? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

hm0504

09-07-2005, 07:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BackpackerBrian:
Does this mean that God listens to conservative Christian Pat Robertson??

Man are we in trouble now . . . . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've wondered that too. Pat Robertson has repeatedly called on Americans for "vacancies" in the Supreme Court so that more conservatives can get in to these lifelong positions. And yet the vacancy that happens is that of a sitting conservative. Maybe there is a message here, but not the one Pat Robertson was aiming for.

S.M.A.

09-07-2005, 06:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
"My apologies. I guess my attempt to grab attention backfired."

Thank you for understanding. I just think that respect should be paid for the deceased. Disagree with his views, actions, etc. but allow the deceased the dignity of addressing him correctly.

"Bush wants Roberts to be Cheif Justice now..."

Yes, Qik. Along with what Kirk mentioned, a couple reasons for Bush's reasoning.

1) Roberts is a conservative replacing a conservative. It will be an easier sell than when he was replacing moderate O'Connor.

2) Roberts knows all of the Justices (the remaining 5) as he was Rehnquist's assistant.

"Of one thing we all can be sure the one who takes the place of The Honorable Judge Renquist will be his opposite"

How? In Roberts' case, both parties have found things to hate him for. Heck, he helped in a case for the side of gay rights and argued in a case for anti-abortion opponents.

But here's hoping he doesn't have an Anita Hill hiding.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, there are seven left- Ginsburg, Scalia, Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer, Thomas, and Souter. Nonetheless, I still think Scalia is most qualified.

Stuart http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

nudeM

09-07-2005, 06:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by Bob S.:
"My apologies. I guess my attempt to grab attention backfired."

Thank you for understanding. I just think that respect should be paid for the deceased. Disagree with his views, actions, etc. but allow the deceased the dignity of addressing him correctly.

"Bush wants Roberts to be Cheif Justice now..."

Yes, Qik. Along with what Kirk mentioned, a couple reasons for Bush's reasoning.

1) Roberts is a conservative replacing a conservative. It will be an easier sell than when he was replacing moderate O'Connor.

2) Roberts knows all of the Justices (the remaining 5) as he was Rehnquist's assistant.

"Of one thing we all can be sure the one who takes the place of The Honorable Judge Renquist will be his opposite"

How? In Roberts' case, both parties have found things to hate him for. Heck, he helped in a case for the side of gay rights and argued in a case for anti-abortion opponents.

But here's hoping he doesn't have an Anita Hill hiding.

Bob S.

Actually, there are seven left- Ginsburg, Scalia, Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer, Thomas, and Souter. Nonetheless </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe there are still eight. Justice O'Conner has stated she will retire 'after' someone is named to fill her vacancy. She is still a Supreme Court Justice, which she will still hold when the Court reconvenes.

nudeM

09-07-2005, 06:54 PM

Posted by Gecko: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually, HereticChick, there have only been two Chief Justices that were picked from the Associates. Rehnquist was one and I don't recall the other offhand. All other Chief Justices have been picked from outside the SC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe Warren Burger was the other. Not too sure, but I remember hearing his name mentioned when the topic was brought up on TV.

09-07-2005, 07:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nudeM:
Posted by Gecko: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually, HereticChick, there have only been two Chief Justices that were picked from the Associates. Rehnquist was one and I don't recall the other offhand. All other Chief Justices have been picked from outside the SC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe Warren Burger was the other. Not too sure, but I remember hearing his name mentioned when the topic was brought up on TV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were three. Rhenquist, Harlan Fiske Stone and Edward Douglass White.

Burger was a Nixon appointee from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

S.M.A.

09-09-2005, 08:19 AM

Thank you for clarifying that.

So O'Connor might stay a little bit longer. That should be interesting.

Stuart http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bob S.

09-09-2005, 11:12 PM

"I believe there are still eight."

Yeah nudeM and Stu, I can't count and yes, nudeM, I believe that O'Connor will be staying on until her replacement is confirmed.

"I don't like the fact that the man has never been on the supreme court and has no experience, yet they're going to make him CHIEF justice?"

HC, I think I recall hearing that Earl Warren was governor of California(?) before being named Chief Justice.

"So, is an anti-abortion opponent actually pro-abortion?"

Who is pro-abortion, moboy? He argued for a group of anti-abortionists (abortion opponents) who were charged with a wrong law for protesting outside an abortion clinic. I guess I couldn't decide which term to use.

Bob S.

S.M.A.

09-11-2005, 08:35 AM

I usually go with "pro-lifer."

I know there's a precedent, but I'd much rather have Antonin Scalia as Chief Justice, not John Roberts.

Stuart http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

KirkOntario

09-11-2005, 07:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HereticChick:
I don't like the fact that the man has never been on the supreme court and has no experience, yet they're going to make him CHIEF justice? He's only 50 years old! We're screwed, seriously screwed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Chief Justice is only one of the judges. Gives only one opinion. The role of Chief Justice is more administrative than anything. Plays a role in the U.S. constitution under very exceptional circumstances. Other than that, he's one of nine.
Terrific that he's young and can spend much of his career honing his judicial skills on the most important bench in the U.S.

shomymojo

09-11-2005, 07:50 PM

Roberts will probably be a good Judge...both far left & far Right seem to have reservations about him...so he must be in the middle...LOL

HereticChick

09-11-2005, 11:36 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Posted September 11, 2005 07:42 PM

quote:
Originally posted by HereticChick:
I don't like the fact that the man has never been on the supreme court and has no experience, yet they're going to make him CHIEF justice? He's only 50 years old! We're screwed, seriously screwed.

The Chief Justice is only one of the judges. Gives only one opinion. The role of Chief Justice is more administrative than anything. Plays a role in the U.S. constitution under very exceptional circumstances. Other than that, he's one of nine.
Terrific that he's young and can spend much of his career honing his judicial skills on the most important bench in the U.S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, I think I'd rather have someone with already sharpened skills, than someone whos skills require "honing" on the Supreme Court.

P.J.

09-12-2005, 01:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
Roberts will probably be a good Judge...both far left & far Right seem to have reservations about him...so he must be in the middle...LOL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree.
Justice Roberts just might be the best choice. The evidence might be that both the far Right and far Left have their reservations about him.
I'm more concerned who is going to win. I hope it is the people of the United States!

09-12-2005, 04:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
Roberts will probably be a good Judge...both far left & far Right seem to have reservations about him...so he must be in the middle...LOL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The right has swung so far right that the middle is now on the right too.

nudeM

09-12-2005, 07:09 AM

And the left has swung too far to the left, thus equalizing the scales of justice. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

09-12-2005, 11:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nudeM:
And the left has swung too far to the left, thus equalizing the scales of justice. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately that didn't happen. It's not equal at all.

nudeM

09-12-2005, 02:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by nudeM:
And the left has swung too far to the left, thus equalizing the scales of justice.

Unfortunately that didn't happen. It's not equal at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
--------------------------------------------------------------

Yea and thank God it doesn't swing back to the way is was for 40+ years. At least there is progress beginning to take shape.

usuallylurk

09-12-2005, 04:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HereticChick:
I don't like the fact that the man has never been on the supreme court and has no experience, yet they're going to make him CHIEF justice? He's only 50 years old! We're screwed, seriously screwed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Chief Justice is only one of the judges. Gives only one opinion. The role of Chief Justice is more administrative than anything. Plays a role in the U.S. constitution under very exceptional circumstances. Other than that, he's one of nine.
Terrific that he's young and can spend much of his career honing his judicial skills on the most important bench in the U.S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Chief Justice's role is not "more administrative than anything". It's extremely critical.

The CJ -- if he sides with the majority - directs who writes the majority opinion of the court -- or he can do it himself.

And just as important as the Yea/Nay vote is the content of the written majority opinion because that will steer other future court decisions, establish precedents, and serve as a guide to lower court judges and even legislators at the federal and state levels.

Thus, when the Court receives a case, and an issue is detailed in the majority and sometimes a concurring opinion - the opinion is used by the court to reject certiorari (refuses to hear the case) "Cert denied, see Smith v Jones (1939)" for example.

And one of the most inflammatory court cases in history - Dred Scott - was not significant in its ruling "yes" or "no" - "Was Dred Scott a free man?" but in the OPINION - he had no standing, as a black man he had no rights and could not become a citizen.

The fears are that the Bill of Rights could be trashed under this court - from decrees from the bench.

NudeTopher

10-10-2005, 05:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by soundman:
It is very sad that he has passed.

But he was too strict with some things. In 2003, for example, the court preserved affirmative action in college admissions and issued a landmark gay rights ruling that struck down laws criminalizing gay sex, both over Rehnquist's objections.

We now need someone who will uphold the constitution instead of the other way around. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps your copy of the constitution is different from mine Soundman. Would you please tell us what part of the constitution supports discrimination? Would you tell us what parts of the constitution prohibit remedies to those who experinece discrimination (vis-a-vis affirmitive action). While you are at it, could you also tell us what part of the constitution permits certain types of of sexual behavior to be legal and regulates other types of sexual behavior?

Since you seem to be in favor of discrimination based upon your understanding of the constitution for people of color and gay people all I ask is that you illustrate for us where these ideals are based in the constitution. On what constitutional basis could these cases have been decided differently?

S.M.A.

10-17-2005, 08:29 AM

Good point, Chris.

So, what does everyone think of Harriet Miers? Is she the Robert Bork of a new generation?

Stuart http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

hm0504

10-17-2005, 12:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by S.M.A.:
Good point, Chris.

So, what does everyone think of Harriet Miers? Is she the Robert Bork of a new generation?

Stuart http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We're discussing that on another topic: see
http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/650...152/m/9590031653/p/9 (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/9590031653/p/9)