Slashdot Mirror


Chief Justice Rehnquist Dies at 80

After 33 years at the bench, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist has passed away at the age of 80 due to thyroid cancer. This comes after the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor from the court over the summer. Rehnquist's passing gives President Bush the opportunity to replace the second justice of his term, this time perhaps to assume the highest role in the judicial system.

34 of 730 comments (clear)

  1. Rest in peace my friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    fuck all the politics , lets remember the man..

    1. Re:Rest in peace my friend by JMZorko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. Be thee liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between, this justice performed his duties to the best of his ability, to the very, very end. That shows a certain passion, a certain true belief in what you're doing.

      Regards,

      John

      --
      Falling You - beautiful
    2. Re:Rest in peace my friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry, but I don't care what you do on the bench - if you are part of a political party, you have no business being on the supreme court. The supreme court and the constitution is not a place for pushing republican values or democratic values. It's a place for adhering to the constitution. Period.

    3. Re:Rest in peace my friend by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      fuck all the politics , lets remember the man..

      Agreed and Disagreed.

      Agreed with anything relating to Renquist.

      Disagreed when it comes time to replace him.

      Because the Supreme Court is more important than the President and Congress. It's pathetic and sad, but true, they are the last line of defense between the government and the Constitution.

      Especially in recent times as the executive and legislative branches grab more and more money and power for themselves in the guise of representing the people - the Supreme Court seems to be the one branch actually interested in what the Constitution says other than figuring ways around it (even though I think that's going down the drain slowly too with that last property & profit decision in June).

      It's harder to buy a judge - they don't need reelecting. There's only nine of them (easier to monitor them unlike Congress) and they don't try to do as much in secrecy as say, the White House.

      Plus, except for death and voluntary retirement, most Supreme Judge's terms extend right past the president that nominates them. the congress that confirms them into infinity.

      Their biases alone will not only determine crap like abortion, but whether highstake legisition like DMCA is constitutional. Multiply that by all the technologicial issues (stem cell, cloning, etcetera) and you can easily see the Supreme Court as the trump card of any movement - be it conservative, liberal, free software, open software, etcetera.

      It comes down to them.

      I would dare say in the longterm, the two upcoming new Justices (whoever they may be) will impact us more than any elected politician short of President ever will.

    4. Re:Rest in peace my friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hear hear.

      Though like many Slashdotters I am a left-winger, I really appreciate how so many of our compatriots not only vote but also so clearly care about values and ethics. Renquist was one of America's great justices.

      Slashdot Politics could be a powerful force if properly directed!

      Keep up the great work,
      -joshua

    5. Re:Rest in peace my friend by Joe+U · · Score: 4, Insightful

      they are the last line of defense between the government and the Constitution.

      Actually, the people are.

  2. Re:slashdot by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Considering the sweeping implications, I'd say it falls squarely under "stuff that matters".

  3. Oh yeah! by mcgroarty · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It's time for Chief Justice Pat Robertson!

    Seriously though. When can we get someone who wasn't in line to buy grandkids Pong when it first came out? I'm not concerned about the political leanings so much as I am about getting someone who doesn't think "The Internet" is a feature of premium adult diapers.

  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Re:YRO? by John+Seminal · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Obviously important, but your rights online??!?

    Are you stupid. The court has more power than the president. They are the only institution that can VETO both the president and congress. They are a staple of humainty.

    Back when the court was something, they are the ones who told the police they must read rights to people. Back then, the courts said that people could not be taken by government for no reason. That government could not look at your reading list and label you as a terrorist because you read Carol Marx. Do you know how many Joe McCarthy's there are in government, and how the courts have stopped them?

    Times are changing.

    Why did Rehnquist not retire? Why did he stay when he was sick? Was he this sick? Why did Vincent Foster kill himself in a public park?

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

  6. Re:Obvious issues... by Decker-Mage · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Pardon me, but how is it activist to actually discuss the law in terms that the founding fathers intended? I'm not a Christian, never have been, but it's part and parcel of the Declaration of Independence (Creator anyone?) and the Constitution (God anyone?). As for abortion, although it existed as did drug abuse in the eighteenth century, neither was addressed as they shouldn't be addressed except in terms of the 10th Amendment which was put in the Bill of Rights for exactly that reason. These are state issues or personal issues. It is no concern of the federal government as are a lot of things that the federal government has decided to become concerned with lately (since the '60's).

    Sorry, but Jefferson and Madison knew what the frag they were doing when they set up our structure of government as anyone would know from their writings if they bothered to read, which sad to say is no longer part of the curricula of education today. No surprise that as it would torpedo the so-called liberal agenda today.

    I'm still ticked that the left today has stolen our good "liberal" name, so much so that we have to call ourselves "classical liberals". Jefferson, and to a lesser extent Madison, are my mentors.

    --
    "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
  7. Re:A scary thought by cnerd2025 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The Geneva convention is quaint and irrelevant..."

  8. Re:Well fuck. by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a pretty common number. Clinton got two, the elder Bush got two, Reagan got two. Even Ford got one. Nixon got three, and Johnson and Kennedy each got two. Ike got four.

    Carter seems to have been the only president in the last century that hasn't appointed anyone to the Supreme Court.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  9. Re:YRO? by John+Seminal · · Score: 3, Insightful
    My guess is that the reason he didn't retire was that he knew he was going to die, and he didn't want the President and Senate fighting over his position while he was still alive.

    If he was alive, he would have had power.

    Imagine the following exchange.

    Rehnquist : Mr President, I am ready to retire, but I want a replacement who is not too whack.

    President:: No!

    Rehnquist: Okay, I'll stay in office. Maybe I will live longer than the 4 years you were elected for. Maybe a democrat will win, and replace me with someone who you could never fathom. Or you could compromise.

    President: No! Now where is my cake. I was promised cake. With sprinkles.

    What sick person would cling to a job? The only reason is the job was so important that if he left, everything would get fucked up. What is going on? Think about it?

    If you had cancer, would you tell your boss at Microsoft- "Well, I got bone cancer and the doc gives me 6 months to live, but GOD DAMN IT, I WANT LONGHORN DONE RIGHT!!".

    What was Rehnquist sticking around for? What is easier? To die like he did. Or to die at home, in comfort? What was he so worried about?

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

  10. A shame. by Devil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh, well; I wasn't really using the Fourth Amendment, anyway.

  11. Re:those of us who aren't... by pmccurdy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >bush's tax cuts and utterly irresponsible fiscal policy ensured
    >that we will be feeling the sting of his tax cuts for many, /
    >many/ years to come

    You mean the tax cuts that immediately followed a long-term upward trend in unemployment that turned into a steady downward trend in unemployment? You mean the tax cuts that immediately predated an upward trend in tax revenues as well as a steady increase in both the number and size of dividend payments by US corporations? Tax cuts after which followed increased entrepreneurial ventures, an increase in the number of IPOs, as well as a return to a bullish stock market?

    Oh, woe be us!

    Criticize Bush's spending if you will, but the tax cuts have been a boon to our economy.

  12. RIP by nich0las · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was questioning why he stayed in office when everyone was expecting him to retire. I first thought it was just to spite Bush and not give him a chance to seat someone. I think now in hind sight that was wrong. The appoinment of the Supreme court justice is a position that will(can) be held for life. I think Rehnquist is the embodiment of what true commitment is. I don't know the facts, but how many of the previous justices have died while still being seated? Rehnquist is a man, who's life story will be known by many. RIP

  13. Re:A Rehnquist Story by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >That's funny, I thought that the legislative branch
    > "made law". Silly me...

    Supreme Court judgements also have the weight of law, and they tend to narrow the abstract laws passed by the legislature, into concrete interpretations.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  14. Two sides to every story... by sd_diamond · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since blasting McCarthy is so popular, how about another side to the story http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/13 .html

    OK, that's... interesting.

    For those that don't have time to RTFA, here's a time-saving summary:

    "There were some Commies and spies (hey, aren't they all really the same anyway?) living in the U.S., so McCarthy was perfectly justified in destroying as many lives as he wished."
  15. Re:he knew the danger by TooManyNames · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yeah, damn those Republicans and their obvious endorsement of all things corporate. Oh wait, which side of the court voted to allow corporations to swipe land from citizens in the interests of the so called public good? Hmmm, couldn't have been our liberal saviors could it? Let's think about Kelo v. City of New London for a while... Oh wait, yeah, the 5-4 decision expanding eminent domain to include corporate interests was completely the work of the John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Not exactly your model Republicans.

    Open your eyes for just a moment and realize something. Democrats are not your friends. Republicans are not your friends. Each party will seek to expand the government to suit their own interests (which is why it's so great that massive expansion in either direction isn't too easy).

    --
    "Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
  16. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by Nasarius · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Ever heard of retirement?

    Supreme Court justices tend to retire only for severe health reasons that prevent them from carrying out their duties. Praying for that is disgusting.

    --
    LOAD "SIG",8,1
  17. Re:One more time. by demachina · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "and just filibuster until the whitehouse is back in our hands."

    Depends on exactly what point you call the "height of Watergate" but Nixon's approval rating was down in the 20's at its nadir, Bush is still in the 40's though it will be interesting to see what Katrina does to him. I suspect now that most of the people are evacuated and fed the outrage about New Orleans will blow over.

    Wouldn't be surprised if the Republican spin machine manages to turn it in to a story of the Bush administration stepping in to save the day and blame everything that went wrong on the Democratic mayor of New Orleans and the Democratic governor of Louisiana. I assure you Rove and Co. were thinking about the political implications of this disaster from the get go.

    I also wager sometimes this session or next Congress will pass a bill giving the executive branch and DOD sweeping new powers to intervene domestically and overturn Posse Comitatus facilitating future imposition of martial law. The catch phrase will be "Remember New Orleans" as they sell our freedom down the river again just like they did with the Patriot Act.

    --
    @de_machina
  18. Re:YRO? by mankey+wanker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree with this in spirit. It's not impossible that the Chief Justice was not a Bush II type Republican - which people really do need to understand is different than what has generally been considered a Republican before the last 10-15 years. Bush II represents the unconcealed face of the plutocracy. If it were otherwise, the National Guard would be here at home taking care of disaster victims instead of protecting the oil interests of Bush II's buddies.

    And when it comes to individual rights, the Democrats are now the conservatives.

    Basically, everything is fucked up and inverted.

  19. Farewell good sir. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I know that the politicking about his replacement has already started.

    Before anyone gets too carried away about abortion litmus tests, remember this.

    US Constitution Article VI

    • Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

      LK
    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  20. Re:Obvious issues... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not a Christian, never have been, but it's part and parcel of the Declaration of Independence (Creator anyone?) and the Constitution (God anyone?).

    What are you talking about? Neither of the words "god" or "creator" occur even once in the US Constitution. Meanwhile, in the Declaration of Independence the actual terms that occur are "Nature's God" and "Creator" - neither of which says a ringy-ding-ding about a Christian God. Certainly there is NO mention of Christ, Messiah, Yahweh, Prophet, Bodhisattva, Kalima, or any other specific diety or divine office.

    Furthermore, there is no indication whatsoever, and plenty of indication to the contrary, in those documents that religion - any religion - should even be acknowledged by the state.

    This is where Scalia and his claims of being a "strict constructionist" fall apart. For the most part his words and deeds match, but once religion comes into the picture he's just waving his hands and hoping nobody examines his justifications too closely, because when you do, you see just how far he has to reach to bring his god into the arena.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  21. He was scum by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The biggest canard in law is that "strict construction" has a coherent meaning. Other than "I am the true interpreter of the Text!" The bigger joke in politics is that there was anything principled about the guy.

    You can look over his record and predict his votes by this formula: economic strong trumps weak (corp vs. individual), powerful trumps weak (govt vs whistleblower or random individual.) Remember: he voted that INNOCENCE WAS NOT A REASON TO OVERTURN A DEATH PENALTY CONVICTION. After all, rich white people are hardly ever in that situation, so it can't be very important.

    Even CNN is falling for it. "States rights...except where state law threatens Republican election chances."

    Gil made his bones in thuggish suppression of minority votes - naturally the shenannigans in Florida in 2000 so overwhelmed him with nostalgia that he could punt 20 years of his own precident to achieve an outcome.

    It's just a shame it didn't happen 40 years earlier.

    1. Re:He was scum by Tatarize · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everybody loves dead people. I mean, think back to the Reagan death party. You'd think the man singlehandedly beat every Commie to death with the Americian flag. Rather than betraying the country (Iran-Contra) and creating a huge national debt (I hate the national debt).

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
  22. Re:More power? How do you figure that? by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yet the courts ruled that gays had special rights.


    Actually, they ruled that gays should have the same rights as everyone else, without having to pretend to be straight in order to get them. (if you think gay marriage is a "special right", imagine yourself living as a straight person in a society where only gay marriages were allowed. Would you consider your wanting to marry someone of the opposite sex a "special right"?)


    Not only that, but the court told businesses, no matter what religion of the leadership,
    they must pay money to gays to support the "spouse". That is even if the business is private, and the owners are christian and want to give christian values to the world, to make the place better.


    Not only that, the courts previously ruled that businesses aren't allowed to discriminate against minorities in hiring, even if the business is private, and the owners are KKK members and want to give KKK values to the world, to make the place better.


    Some people even look upon this as a good thing.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  23. As much as I disliked his attitude... by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ...the fact is, he was a person who did his utmost to live by his beliefs and to stand by what he considered important and of value.


    It is also worth considering that it takes a kind of courage that few on this planet possess to stay working when (quite probably) in terrible agony and (certainly) in full knowledge that his days were numbered.


    I see little honor in the living dying for one's country. I see considerable honor in the dying living for theirs. The difference is important. The former is a waste, the latter is devotion.


    While I have a hard time telling him to rest in peace, I do at least wish him no ill and pray that whatever lies beyond this life has mercy upon him and remember him not for his faults - we all have those - but for what good he brought into the world.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  24. Sincerity is an over-rated virtue by geoswan · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "To the best of his ability?"

    Sincerity is a highly over-rated virtue. If he did a lousy job it doesn't matter very much if he was sincere in how he tried to carry out his duties.

  25. Re:The modern political spectrum. by Liam+Slider · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Far right" version? How exactly, are we "far right"? We may support the idea of truely free market capitalism and a minimal government, but that doesn't make us "far right." Not if you understand that these policies arise more out of a sense of "who the hell are you to tell me what to do if I'm not hurting anyone" than anything.

  26. Re:The modern political spectrum. by TheGavster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Libertarians are not anarchists. There's a difference between "do whatever you want" and "no fellow citizen can tell you what to do". Libertarians like government, just not a massive government that tries to handle every aspect of your life. Keep people from commiting offense against other people, and let the market handle the rest. There's nothing 'far right' about it; in fact, many Libertarian viewpoints will get you thrashed by conservatives.

    --
    "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
  27. Re:The modern political spectrum. by drooling-dog · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Libertarians are the clowns swinging from the chandeliers.

    And there they will continue to swing until they realize that the unchecked concentration of private power can be as oppressive as that of government power, and leads inexorably to fascism as the former consumes the latter. Could it possibly be happening here?

  28. Re:One more time. by demachina · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well its easy to explain how they will spin it, and in fact already have been in the last couple of days.

    Disasters are state and local responsibilities by law and policy. The Federal government is only supposed to provide support at the call of governor's and mayors.

    A. They will blame the governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans for not marshalling city buses and providing transportation for the poor and infirm. Its a bit unfair because even if they had done this I doubt they could have gotten very many more people out in the short time available. You just can't force people to evacuate a big city in this short time, but providing public transportation for those who want to leave seems like a local failure. Of course once you put them on buses where would they go.

    B. They will point out the National Guard is under the control of the Governor so any failure in deploying it is the Governor's fault. This is true though it glosses over the Bush administration had 1/4 to 1/3 of the Guard manpower and 1/2 its equipment in Iraq. The Federal government is by law precluded from putting troops in to states and cities, thanks to the fact the Federal Army ran out of control after the Civil War and was reined in my the Posse Comitatus act in 1878. It is most of the time a good restraint and prevents martial law and dictatorship. In this case it caused problems though.

    C. There will be finderpointing as to whose fault it was the levees broke. Maybe it was inevitable they were going to break under this stress, though I wager these localized failures were due to bad maintenance. More importantly there should have been helicopters surveying them the second the weather cleared and sending resource to plug leaks before they washed out leading to the massive failures. Its sad no one had a plan to survey and do emergency repairs on these levees, a stitch(or sandbag) in time might have prevented this though we may never know unless someone was watching how and why the levees actually failed.

    Some things I want to come out in the investigation:

    - Who stopped the Red Cross from entering New Orleans because it was "to dangerous". Was it FEMA, state or local. For whatever reason, the Red Cross is the one who insured people get food and water and it couldn't get in to New Orleans because someone stopped them.

    - The President of Jefferson Parish in New Orleans accused FEMA on "Meet the Press" this morning of intentionally cutting the communication lines they local and state people were using, they had to patch the lines and post armed guards.

    - How much did the levees degrade because the Army Corps of Engineers had its funding cut for them and had its personell and money redirected to rebuild Iraq versus how much was due to cuts from local levee districts.

    At this point I'd really like to know did FEMA:

    - Do everything possible but it was just to hard
    - Do a mediocre and inadequate job
    - Did FEMA make things worse and actually obstruct the recovery

    I'm more than a little suspicious the Bush administration let things go bad on purpose, they just let it go to far and it backlashed on them. They were probably planning to have the President come in on his white horse followed an hour later by the Army moving in to save the day which is more or less what happened its was just to late.

    --
    @de_machina