March of the Thin Skinned...

A couple of concerned citizens are filing a suit in Las Cruces due to a horrible violation of their rights...What was this violation you ask? Were they drug from their homes by city officials and forced to recite the Lord's prayer in public? Were they taxed to support the establishment of the Catholic Church in the city of Las Cruces? Were they fined for not attending Christian services every week? Were they forced to sign a statement of adhering to the Christian faith before being elected to public office or getting a job in city government? Were they subjected to epithets or denunciations from government officials for their lack of adhering to the Christian faith? Were they vitims of a religious covenant that only allowed Christians to sell property to other Christians? How were their rights so terribly violated?

Well they have CHOSEN to live in a city whose origins and name are rooted in a historical religious heritage. They have CHOSEN to live in a city whose name when translated into English means "the crosses." They have CHOSEN to live in a city who has for more than 40 years utilized a logo that symbolizes its name and its historical heritage by utilizing three crosses on the logo.

Furthermore, these poor citizens are subjected to seeing these crosses on the city logo on city vehicles and on...stationary. Their Constitutional rights are actively being violated by the mere sight of stationary...this is truly a travesty of epic proportions.

What a set back for civil rights in our country. I mean when two citizens have chosen to live in a city where they may inadvertantly see a municipal vehicle with the cross logo, or may have to fill out a job application with a logo on the letterhead I just don't think our country is living up to its core principles. I am outraged! Citizens should never have to see religious symbols that do not reflect their own beliefs. Citizens should never have to see evidence of the religious heritage of the town in which they live. We should never have to be subjected to such visual reminders of our country's religious diversity and background.

I know exactly how these men feel. I know I am deeply offended when I visit Japan and I see Budhist artifacts and historical temples that recieve government funding...I think...how dare they affront me with the dominant religious and cultural heritage of Japan! Don't they know I do not share the Budhist faith? How can they allow their government to fund such obtrusive and insensitive objects? I am so glad that I can live in a country that is progressively working towards removing any historical reminder of our religious heritage...someday when people visit the United States we can hope that there will be no official civic reminders of the religious origins and history of certain towns and cities. The religious past of the country and some of our localities may be factual, it may be historical, but some history is just too offensive to be reflected in any official way...we must insure that our society reflects the needs of the most easily offended amongst us. We need to be sensitive to the thin-skinned Americans that cannot cope with some of the historical realities of the society in which they choose to live.

"LAS CRUCES, N.M. (AP) - The city of Las Cruces' official emblem has three crosses that a federal lawsuit alleges are unconstitutional religious symbols on public property.

The lawsuit, filed Sept. 16 in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, seeks the removal of the crosses."The crosses serve no governmental purpose other than to disenfranchise and discredit non-Christian citizens," said the lawsuit filed by Paul F. Weinbaum, who lives in the Las Cruces area, and Martin J. Boyd of Las Cruces.

Defendants include city officials, city councilors, Mayor Bill Mattiace, District Attorney Susana Martinez, state Attorney General Patricia Madrid and Gov. Bill Richardson.

"We have had to defend ourselves before and we're ready to do it again," Mattiace said."The crosses have a basis for being in our logo. We will hold course and will defend that," he said. Las Cruces is Spanish for "The Crosses."

Fermin Rubio, city attorney, said the lawsuit did not raise any new issues since attempts were made in 2003 to prevent the city from using the logo.

The state Highway and Transportation Department, now the Department of Transportation, had announced that the logos would be removed from two state highway underpasses. But Richardson ordered the agency not to remove the logo from state roads, saying it represents a historical event and is a point of pride for Las Cruces residents."

Read the rest of the article...

Speculation Mounts...

More speculation from over at Confirm Them...

"With a Presidential announcement any day regarding Sandra Day O’Connor’s replacement, it is time to review what we know and what we do not know.
First, we know that many in the legal community think Priscilla Owen has the nod. Robert Novak’s reporting has been consistent with that assumption. We also know that she had a private meeting with the President. Lastly, we know the President is fond of her. Unfortunately, some also think Owen is not strongly pro-life and would never vote to overrule Roe v. Wade.
Second, I have five unconnected sources, including two inside the White House, who are telling me that Rove thinks Gonzales needs to be considered and that Gonzales is more conservative that we all think. The Washington Post has had similar information. One source alone would be rather inconsequential, but five unconnected people telling me the same thing makes me think this is credible. Nonetheless, I agree with K-Lo. I do not think Alberto Gonzales will become Justice Gonzales. I just don’t see it happening.
Here’s why. The conservative base got a very upset stomach when it appeared all but certain that Joy Clement was the nominee. The base is already against Gonzales. While Rove may be doing his calculations that there is enough on the court’s docket to prove Gonzales’s bona fides before the midterm elections, the base will be apoplectic for a good long while and the President will have a lot of difficulty moving what little remains of his agenda until people realize Gonzales is actually a conservative. Additionally, what went under the radar for most was that while Rove is pushing Gonzales, there are doubts as to how easily Gonzales could be confirmed. The Democrats are itching for a fight and Gonzales gives them lots to fight with.
If the President wants to rally the base, choosing Gonzales would be a disaster. The base is already angry over spending and Gonzales will not help. This does not make sense and I do not think it will happen.
What we do not know is very obvious. Who the nominee will be is a great mystery right now. Owen is up there. I still think Luttig is in play based solely on my gut and his qualifications. One name that started surfacing in my email and IMs over the past twenty-four hours has been Diane Sykes. Batchelder’s name keeps coming up too.
Perhaps the most interesting name that keeps surfacing is that of Miguel Estrada. Former Solicitor General Ted Olson has been a big proponent of Estrada’s, but it is unclear that Estrada wants to try that fight again — especially when the stakes are so much higher. I am, however, inclined to think the next justice will come from one of the United States Courts of Appeal and Estrada does not fit.
The White House is doing an even better job of keeping the lid on this nominee than the last. That leads me to believe that all the outside chatter is meant to misdirect us from the actual nominee. I have said repeatedly here and elsewhere that Karl Rove and President Bush both believe one of the main reasons the Republicans have been so dominant since 2000, is because of a conservative base who think judicial victory is just around the corner. That to me means that we will see the President nominate a conservative — perhaps not a Jones or a Garza, but a conservative of high professional reputation with a paper trail that does not contain the specific answer to the question “how definite has the nominee been on the issue of overturning Roe?”
We’ll find out who it is rather soon."

Roberts Out of Committee

Roberts is successfully out of committee. Surprisingly he did get three Democratic votes. This vote should be seen in the context of both sides jockying for position to win the battle of public opinion on the next nominee. The fact that Patrick Leahy voted for Roberts does not mean that Leahy truly supported him, likely it means that now when the next nominee comes up Leahy can credibly say that he is not unreasonable, since he did support Roberts, but this nominee (fill in the name) is just too extreme and he will have to vote against them. The Dems will likely seek to have enough votes against Roberts to satisfy their core constituencies but enough votes to try and credibly claim that they worked with Bush on the Roberts nomination. By appearing reasonable on Roberts it gives them more room to conduct an all out war on the next nominee. They can tell the public, "See we can work with Bush when he sends 'moderate' judges, but this one is just too extreme."

There will likely be little difference between Roberts and the next pick except for the fact that they will be replacing O'Connor not Rehnquist.

All the while the Republicans will seek to paint the tepid Democratic support for Roberts as proof that they are unreasonable and cannot be satisfied, thus the Republicans will be justified in changing Senate rules should the Dems filibuster the next nominee.

The relative ease with which Roberts will be confirmed will only serve to doubly intensify the next battle.

Roberts will not alter the balance on the court. The next nominee will. Dems cannot let that happen for the Court has been their most reliable and forceful public policy organ.

"WASHINGTON Sep 22, 2005 — The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved John Roberts' nomination as the next Supreme Court chief justice, virtually assuring his confirmation by the Senate next week.
The official tally of 13-5 was anticlimatic, with the committee's 10 majority Republicans lined up solidly behind the conservative judge's nomination to the full Senate weeks in advance.
But the decision by three Democrats to join Republican efforts to make Roberts the nation's 109th Supreme Court justice outlined the division in the minority caucus over whether Democrats can, or should, mount even symbolic opposition to Roberts to send President Bush a message on his next Supreme Court nomination..."

Read the Rest...

Speculation on O'Connor's Replacement

When you start with your best foot, how do you avoid stumbling on your next step. If Roberts was so exceptional that the Dems couldn't touch him, then how do you follow his performance? Who do you pick who will be similarly excellent and qualified, but who will be able to stand up to the withering attacks from the Left. The battle for the next nominee will be much more heated, by a factor of at least 10. There will be fireworks and who do you expect will be able to withstand the onslaught?

Here is another piece from Confirm Them:

"Needed: One Tough Judge

The New York Times reports that The White House is revising its criteria for Justice O’Connor’s replacement: The nominee needs to be tough. Quite rightly, the Administration apparently suspects that the Democrats’ frustration at being unable to lay a finger on Judge Roberts may spill over and be vented on the next nominee.

Fair enough — in my view, any Supreme Court nominee should have the mental toughness that will serve him/her well not only in confirmation hearings, but in resisting the blandishments of the (liberal) Beltway establishment if he/she is ultimately confirmed.The story likewise notes that some Democrats want to muster numerous votes against John Roberts to “send a message” to The White House, while others believe most Dems should vote for him in order to promote the illusion that they are reasonable.

But the real truth comes at the story’s end, when it’s noted that liberal legal groups and unions have come out against Judge Roberts’ nomination. The fact is that these groups will oppose any Bush nominee. So the nominee might as well be someone who’s worth what will surely be a bitter and unpleasant fight. "

In another piece there is a vote for Luttig...

"I spoke with a member of our version of the House of Lords today. He has a decided preference for O’Connor’s spot — Judge Luttig. His reasoning, though basic, makes sense.Roberts, he said, sets the bar very, very high for any other nominee. “The field is very small for top notch conservative judges,” he says. “In my opinion, at the very top there are only two who are of Roberts’ caliber: Michael Luttig and Michael McConnell.”

“We know the Democrats are going to fight like hell. We need a nominee who can withstand the assault, handle himself as well under questioning as Roberts, and appear as credible to the public as Roberts did.” The Senator thinks that Luttig and McConnell fit those criteria better than any other potential nominee.

Of those two, the Senator is more comfortable with Luttig than McConnell. Luttig is “more judge than academic” to the Senator and the Senator thinks Luttig would be better equipped to handle the questions and the fight.

“The President will be consulting with the Senate. I intend to suggest that Michael Luttig should be considered.”"

The Politics of Voting...

Here is some speculation of the confirmation of Roberts from over at Confirm Them:

"Notwithstanding the WaPo editorial and the “Dean” of the Washington Press Corp going to bat for Roberts (which we know will make some conservatives nervous), I hear that the vote will not be a landslide for Roberts. In fact, I have gotten word that some Democrats are going to vote against Roberts, knowing he will pass and being inclined to support him, because they are fearful of “the base,” which wants Roberts to be opposed. My sources echo Robert Novak’s and are touting the number 65.


Ironically, I’ve been told late today of a new movement being kicked around by several Democrat Senators, including some members of the Filibuster Gang, that if the majority of Democrat Senators vote for Roberts, they will have a greater argument to oppose Bush’s O’Connor replacement. The feeling is that polls already show the public expects the Dems to oppose anyone the President picks. By not vociferiously opposing Roberts, the Dems will be in a much better position with the public when they actively oppose the next nominee, which I’m told they have every intention of doing."

Observations of an Athiest

Tocqueville observed that religion in America helps shape the character of the American people and that the success of democracy required a good and moral people who were capable of meeting the needs of society on their own, without the aid of the state. Here is a fascinating piece by an atheist who admits that while he believes that religion is foolish and false, it nevertheless creates "better people."

Here is an excerpt...

"The arguments against religion are well known and persuasive. Faith schools, as they are now called, have left sectarian scars on Northern Ireland. Stem-cell research is forbidden because an imaginary God - who is not enough of a philosopher to realise that the ingenuity of a scientist is just as natural as the instinct of Rousseau's noble savage - condemns what he does not understand and the churches that follow his teaching forbid their members to pursue cures for lethal diseases.

Yet men and women who believe that the Pope is the devil incarnate, or (conversely) regard his ex cathedra pronouncements as holy writ, are the people most likely to take the risks and make the sacrifices involved in helping others. Last week a middle-ranking officer of the Salvation Army, who gave up a well-paid job to devote his life to the poor, attempted to convince me that homosexuality is a mortal sin.

Late at night, on the streets of one of our great cities, that man offers friendship as well as help to the most degraded and (to those of a censorious turn of mind) degenerate human beings who exist just outside the boundaries of our society. And he does what he believes to be his Christian duty without the slightest suggestion of disapproval. Yet, for much of his time, he is meeting needs that result from conduct he regards as intrinsically wicked.

Civilised people do not believe that drug addiction and male prostitution offend against divine ordinance. But those who do are the men and women most willing to change the fetid bandages, replace the sodden sleeping bags and - probably most difficult of all - argue, without a trace of impatience, that the time has come for some serious medical treatment. Good works, John Wesley insisted, are no guarantee of a place in heaven. But they are most likely to be performed by people who believe that heaven exists..."


"...The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us free. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army."


Read the rest...

Biden's House built on sand...

The hearings have been at times good theatre and at even better times they have provided very instructive insight into the difference between those who see a strong policy role for the Court and those who do not. One exchange between Biden and Roberts is particularly insightful. This is from the Day Three Transripts...

"BIDEN: See, you've told me nothing, Judge.
With all due respect, you've not -- look, it's kind of interesting, this Kabuki dance we have in these hearings here, as if the public doesn't have a right to know what you think about fundamental issues facing them.

There's no more possibility that anyone one of us here would be elected to the United States Senate without expressing broadly and sometimes specifically to our public what it is we believe.
The idea that the founders sat there and said, "Look, here's what we're going to do: We're going to require the two elected branches to answer questions of the public with no presumption they should have the job as senator, president or congressman. But guess what? We're going to have a third co-equal branch of government that gets to be there for life; never, ever again to be able to be asked the question they don't want to answer. And you know what? He doesn't have to tell us anything. It's OK, as long as he is" -- as you are -- "a decent, bright, honorable man, that's all we need to know. That's all we need to know."
Look, let's -- I only have three minutes and 45 seconds left -- and by the way, I'd ask permission for the record to introduce the number of questions asked by Senator Hatch and others, very specific questions, as to Justice O'Connor with very specific answers on these very questions. I'd like to ask that they be submitted to the record.

SPECTER: Without objection, they will be made part of the record.

BIDEN: Let me conclude.. "


You see Biden realizes that key policies that he supports and his supporters hold dear, rest on the policy activism by the Court, thus it is inconcievable to him that a Judge's policy views should not be open to public inspection and debate. His ignorance of the Founder's views on the role of judges is astounding for a sitting Senator. Biden suggests lamentably that the Founder's did not mean to set up three coequal branches where one branch would not be subject to public scrutiny based on their policy views. Yet, that is exactly what they were doing and meant to do. Biden is simply ignorant of those facts, or is twisting them. If he were intellectually honest he would say "The Framers meant for judges to be free from public scrutiny regarding their policy views, but the Court now plays a policy role and therefore I see it appropriate for you to answer policy related questions." But Biden doesn't say this he merely incorrectly suggests that the founders expected judges to answer questions on their policy views. Read Federalist #78 and see if you can concievably come to Biden's conclusion. Federalist #78:
.

"The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.

If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty."
.

Later on in Federalist #78

.

"To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge. These considerations apprise us, that the government can have no great option between fit character; and that a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity."

.

How does Biden draw is ruminations from any careful study of the Framer's intent? He simply can't. Let's see how Roberts answered Biden's challenge.

.

"Now, the only point I was going to make earlier, because I do think it's an important one -- you make the point that, "We stand for election and we wouldn't be elected if we didn't tell people what we stand for."

Judges don't stand for election. I'm not standing for election. And it is contrary to the role of judges in our society to say that, "This judge should go on the bench because these are his or her positions and those are the positions they're going to apply."

Judges go on the bench and they apply and decide cases according to the judicial process, not on the basis of promises made earlier to get elected or promises made earlier to get confirmed.
That's inconsistent with the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court."

.

Bottomline, Robert's get's it...Biden doesn't. Biden and many other liberals have staked their core policies in the sands of the "living" Constituion. Now he is deathly afraid that Roberts and others will cause the sands to shift and destroy policies he values and his constituents value. Roberts is challenging Biden by asserting that our written Constitution is not and should not be built on the sand of judicial policy preferences, but on the rock of its own text as ratified by a super majority of the people.

.

There is an old sunday school song with a chorus that states "The foolish man built his house upon the sand...the foolish man built his house upon the sand..." the next chorus sings, "The wise man built his house upon the rock...the wise man built his house upon the rock..."

.

Biden was showing clear frustration with Roberts. Biden should be frustrated with himself, vor by the standards of the song above, Biden has built his house on sand and in that sense, he has been a "foolish man."

The Hearings...The Analysis

Here is some interesting analysis from Hugh Hewitt...

"The Potemkin Opposition to Roberts
September 13, 2005 02:11 PM PST

The collapse of the opposition to Judge Roberts is almost visible in today's questions from Democrats. Judge Roberts is so well prepared and so extraordinarily reasonable and informed, that Democrats are coming off looking silly at best (and churlish at worst, as with Senator Kennedy's repeated interruptions of the nominee.)

In fact, the tactics used by the Democrats suggest they aren't even fighting very hard. Assume --correctly-- that nothing any Democratic senator can say will in any way change the dynamic that is moving towards a huge yes vote on the nomination. The only thing that can change that dynamic is (1)an explosive revelation which is nowhere in sight nor likely to appear or (2) something that Judge Roberts himself says.

Given that the only hope the left has of defeating this man who will be Chief Justice --God willing-- for 30+ years is something that he himself says, the Democrats' long winded and almost endless set-ups to their questions are in fact great favors to Roberts, allowing the judge to in effect run out the clock while not appearing to do so. The Democrats should be asking short, simple, and open-ended questions --hundreds of them-- but they cannot bear to forfeit the television time so they chew up their only hope --the time that Judge Roberts spends talking-- and their opposition is thus perfunctory.

They aren't even trying very hard. If it was a fight, you'd suspect the fix was in.
The additional great benefit of the proceedings as they unfold is that the next nominee will in effect get to read the roll of Roberts' putt in preparation for his or her own hearing. Once the Roberts' answers are given and absorbed into the Senate's records and he is confirmed, a new nominee delivering substantially the same answers to what will no doubt be substantially similar questions will also be as confirmable as Judge Roberts, especially if that nominee is other than a white male. For if the next nominee gives the same answers to the same questions, but a senator who voted for Judge Roberts' confirmation then votes against a Judge Jones, a Judge Owens or a Judge Garza, the question will arise as to why, and the presumption will have to be a non-substantive one.

Still, the superb performance we are watching is the best argument for the appointment not of a judge of a particular background, race or gender, buf for the appointment of a brilliant mind experienced in the very subjects being discussed this week. Nominate a Judge Luttig or a Judge McConnell, and the results will be exactly the same. The American public will not stand for the defeat of a superb jurist at the hands of the small-minded ideolouges that dominate the Senate Democrats.

UPDATE:
Professor B. thinks the roll-over by the Dems has to do with future political ambitions, and he may be right. But judging from the various commentators at various lefty blogs, the "activists" are fuming at the preening of the Democratic senators. As I just discussed with Senator John Kyl, running a four corner offense when you are 30 points behind."

Let the Games Begin

Well, yesterday the Roberts hearings finally started up. So far the hearings are a mix of legitimate questions that should be answered and a game of trying to get Robert's to tip his hand on how he would rule in specific cases. Senators will ask him questions they know he won't answer (or shouldn't answer) then they will feign indignance and try to paint Roberts as not being forthwright or transparant and thus they will in the end conclude they do not know enough about him to in good conscience confirm his nomination.

In all it seems Ginsberg, despite her activism on the court may have given us a valuable precedent for confirmation hearings. The "Ginsberg Rule" is providing judges the space not to have to answer to a litmus test before being confirmed.

Biden got pretty hot under the collar with Roberts to the point of accusing him of being misleading. Let's just say Biden is not exactly a pillar of civility in this case...

Here are Day1 and Day 2 (first half) transcripts...

Preparing for WW III?

Here is a perceptive piece by John Hinderacker looking at the implications of Robert's elevation to the Chief Justice Position. I agree with him that Robert's elevation does shift the grounds of the battle a bit and it shifted in the Democrat's favor. However, the reality is that aside from considerations of political perception (which can be great sometimes) Republicans have the votes to confirm any nominee Bush puts up. Furthermore, if Democrats attempt a filibuster (even when "extreme circumstances" are not present) Republicans can alter Senate rules to guaruntee an up or down vote. The battle is essentially an internal one for both Bush and Senate Republicans. Do they have the political will to fight through Democratic attacks or will they shrink from the condemnations and political drama that will no doubt ensue. WW III will only be avoided if the Republicans decide to abandon the field...

"...Now, the Democrats have been granted a reprieve. They can let Roberts go through with only token opposition, knowing that the philosophical composition of the Court will not change significantly, and concentrate their fire on Bush's second nominee, who will fill the critical seat being vacated by Justice O'Connor. One question, from a conservative point of view, will be whether President Bush can find another nominee who is both as solidly conservative and as non-controversial as John Roberts. Unfortunately, it is not obvious that he can...

...None of the other solidly conservative candidates appears any less likely to engender controversy. So President Bush faces a choice: he can either nominate another conservative and trigger the most bitter confirmation battle since Robert Bork, or he can bow to pressure from the Democrats and the media and appoint a moderate, thereby forgoing, perhaps forever, his opportunity to move the Court in a conservative direction.
Pressure to appoint a centrist will undoubtedly be fierce. Indeed, such pressure is already beginning, even though the Senate has not yet begun to consider Roberts's nomination. Senator Dick Durbin said this week that he wants to know who the second nominee will be before he votes on Judge Roberts. Arlen Specter added, unhelpfully, that O'Connor's replacement should be a woman. It seems unlikely that the senator has Janice Rogers Brown in mind...

...If President Bush nominates another strong conservative to replace O'Connor, the result will be the political equivalent of World War III. Liberal interest groups will face an existential crisis if they do not fight bitterly to keep the Court's current ideological makeup. Win or lose, they have no choice but to make the effort to oppose Bush's second nominee. And, unfortunately for Republicans, it appears likely that any conservative jurist whom Bush may appoint will give the Democrats more ammunition than John Roberts did. So be prepared for the ugliest, most bitter confirmation battle in a generation."

Read the Rest...

Rehnquist Remembered

Here is a good, fair, obituary on Rehnquist....


"Was it a modest man's way of poking fun at himself, and deflating the importance of the mighty office he held? Or was it simply a wry tribute to the masters from a lifelong fan of Gilbert and Sullivan? Some time in 1994, William Rehnquist, the 16th Chief Justice of the United States, appeared in a new robe. Until then, the head of the Supreme Court had worn the same plain black gown as his eight colleagues. One day, however, Rehnquist's had suddenly acquired four golden bars on each sleeve. It was modelled on one he had seen in a production of Iolanthe, worn by the Lord Chancellor who deftly amended a law by adding the word "not", and thus saved a company of fairies from a terrible death.

In the real world, it was not so easy for Rehnquist, as he presided for 19 years over the US Supreme Court - the third branch of the constitution and, whether it likes it or not, the ultimate arbiter of the culture wars that divide American society. But so adroitly did he carry out the job that history may well remember him as one of the great Chief Justices in US history.
Rehnquist was a conservative, but an old- fashioned one, as distant as could be imagined from the doctrinaire modern variety that tends to drown out opponents by sheer volume. His views were consistently right-wing, but invariably tempered by moderation and common sense.
Most important of all, he was a superb organiser of the court's business. He abhorred windy and protracted argument. Rehnquist was a creature of habit, arriving at the court at 9am each morning, and rarely staying beyond 4pm. In his deft, self-effacing way, he held together a court that was often sharply divided and which contained its fair share or more of outsized intellects and tender egos.

He smoothed over rows, and almost never allowed himself to become angry. "I have a very high boiling point," he once said. Never was the Rehnquist style more evident - and more necessary - than in his low-key handling of the Clinton impeachment hearings of early 1999 over which, as the constitution stipulated, he presided.

In his approach to the central duty of the court, to uphold the constitution and make sure that the laws of the land conformed to it, he was similarly measured. He was uncomfortable when the court was expected to resolve social problems, and hated anything that smacked of judicial meddling. Under Rehnquist, the high court halved the number of cases it agreed to hear each year, so that more time could be spent on getting the big decisions right..."

Read the rest...

May He Rest in Peace...

I was saddened by the death of William Rehnquist. He has been a congenial man, a stately figure, and a true trustee of the Constitution. Under his leadership the court has begun the slow turn towards taking the text of the Constitution seriously and seeking to preserve the authority of the Constitution by interpreting it in a manner consistent with its text and the intent of those who wrote and ratified it.

His presence will be missed.

I have no personal memories of interacting with him. I did have one opportunity to meet him but declined the opportunity. Back in 2000, my brother and I were having lunch at the legendary D.C. restraunt The Monacle, which is steps away from the Senate buildings and the Supreme Court. While eating we noticed Rehnquist eating lunch with what seemed to be some of his law clerks a couple of tables away. Neither of us felt it was appropriate to go interrupt his lunch just to introduce ourselves. We merely remarked to each other how we both admired him as a Justice and were glad that we were able to see him in person.

Again our country will miss William Rehnquist as a Justice and as a man.

May he rest in peace and God bless him and his family.

Publius2000

Back in the Saddle

It has obviously been a while since I have been able to post. Over the last month I have been overwhelmed with moving and starting my new job teaching American Government at a local University here in Southern California. As a result my ability to post timely articles has been hampered to say the least. I look forward to picking up the pace again. A great deal has happened in the last month...between Hurrican Katrina, the death of Rehnquist, and the continuing situation in Iraq. I look forward to slowly beginning to comment on all of these in an appropriate manner.

Sincerely,

Publius