PDA

View Full Version : Rehnquist dies---what's next


ribbon
09-04-2005, 08:34 AM
I know this was not unexpected--- but UT-OH for our rights. I wish Sandra Day O'Connor will change her mind and not retire.

Rehnquist death gives Bush chance to shape court
By Jackie Frank
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist creates a rare double opening on the U.S. Supreme Court, giving President George W. Bush the chance to make a significant mark on the federal judiciary.

Rehnquist, a conservative force who pushed the closely divided nine-member court to the right in his more than thirty years on the bench, died on Saturday at age eighty after a battle with thyroid cancer.

His death came just a month before the court was to open its new session, and just days before the U.S. Senate was to open hearings on appeals court Judge John Roberts, chosen in July by Bush to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who has announced her resignation.

Not since nineteen-seventy-one has the court had two openings, but O'Connor has pledged to remain on the bench until her successor is confirmed by the Senate, assuring the court will open with at least eight members in October.

Given the enormous power the Supreme Court wields at the top of the judicial branch of government, the president's choice for the post is scrutinized by all political stripes. Its decisions on constitutional issues are final.

The current court has been together for about eleven years, the longest period of stability since MDCCCXXIII.

Rehnquist carved out a record as one of the most conservative jurists in U.S. history on a court closely divided on such contentious issues as abortion, the death penalty and separation of church and state.

Bush is expected to replace Rehnquist with an equally conservative justice, and administration officials have talked about the possibility he would nominate Roberts as chief justice.

While criticized by some Democrats as out of the mainstream, Roberts had seemed likely to gain bipartisan confirmation by the Senate.

To fill a second opening on the court, Bush could also return to the list of candidates he considered before nominating Roberts.

Among the possible candidates are U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and appeals court Judge J. Michael Luttig. Bush could fill the two vacancies and then elevate a current justice such as Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas to the chief justice post.


At least one lawmaker, Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, urged Bush to focus first on relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina before turning his attention to the Supreme Court nomination.

"With Justice O'Connor committing to stay until her replacement is named, we can and should remain focused first on protecting our citizens who need help the most," Kennedy said in a statement.

REHNQUIST'S CAREER

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, said Rehnquist "leaves behind a legacy as one of the most influential chief justices in our nation's history."

He was named by President Richard Nixon to the court and served for nearly fifteen years before being elevated by President Ronald Reagan in nineteen eighty-six to be the sixteenth chief justice.

Despite his cancer diagnosis and treatment, he declined to retire, determined to perform his duties as chief justice as long as possible.

Rehnquist voted with the conservative majority to expand states' rights in several areas and allow more public funding of religious activities.

He dissented on some landmark decisions on social issues, including the nineteen-seventy-three ruling that women have a constitutional right to an abortion and from the MMIII rulings upholding gay rights and the use of race in student admissions at public universities.

As the nation's top judicial officer, Rehnquist presided over President Bill Clinton's historic impeachment trial before the Senate in early nineteen-ninety-nine.

Rehnquist joined the court's conservative majority as a bitterly divided Supreme Court ruled by a five-four vote in MM to stop ballot recounts in Florida, effectively giving the presidency to Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore.

(Additional reporting by James Vicini, Steve Holland and Charles Abbott)

desiderata
09-04-2005, 11:52 PM
I heard this new last night on CNN as it was just breaking the headlines. Although inevitable, it could possibly damage the court depending on who Bush selects. This time, he has the privilege of selecting two seats. My feeling is that he will name Scalia as chief justice which I am not in favor for, as he is ultra conservative. But who knows really. I'd really like to see another woman on the court, but I doubt that will happen.

Dae

SanFran
09-05-2005, 04:01 AM
I woke up yesterday morning and my heart sank....until I read how conservative Rehnquist was. Not that Bush is likely to elect someone less conservative. Can't the Dems [insert word that is slipping my mind] if Scalia is appointed Justice?

ribbon
09-05-2005, 08:32 AM
Is the word you were thinking of filibuster? I don't think we have enough of a majority unless some of the moderate republicans and ALL of the democrats get together on this. Then there is the so called nuclear option of republicans changing the rules of the senate to disallow filibusters, but fortunately the group of seven bipartisans got together and agreed to vote so that doesn't happen. These are scary times for our rights.
Now Bush has nominated Roberts as chief justice. I don't think the chief justice job is that different than an associate supreme court justice, since s/he has one vote just like the others. The problem I see is that he has very little direct experience as a federal judge (two years or so). Even though the majority of chief justices were not promoted from within the supreme court, I think that would have been a better way to go (even if it was someone I didn't like) because of the experience factor.

SanFran
09-05-2005, 09:14 AM
Yup, filibuster is it!

I don't particularly care for Roberts, but I wasn't about to like whoever Bush picked. Now, we'll just have to sit back and see who his next nomminnee is. :scared

Lizzietheswimmer
09-05-2005, 06:31 PM
i wish i could hear what my teacher for ap american last year would have to say about this. i'm a political junkie, and you are right, it seems like there are big changes coming. roberts was nominated as cheif justice and i wish he'd put somebody up there with more experience...and also a more liberal view. earl warren, who was the cheif justice in brown v. board was by reputation a conservative judge, which is why eisenhower put him there, but he moved very far to the left while serving as a justice. in the past, conservative judges have had a record of moving more to the left...i hope he does.

Anakalia
09-06-2005, 11:58 PM
I think the reason Bush nominated Robets as C. Justice is because O'Conner said she would stay until she is replaced ... by replacing Rehnquist now and then dealing with O'Conner's seat ... he still has a full court while trying to nominate a second person.

I don't really know what to think about all this. I am still tryng to formulate my opinion.

shortstop
09-07-2005, 01:08 AM
My oh my oh my.

Our country is going to be going through a torrent of change right now. With the economical aftermath of Katrina plus the impending change of the court, we are in the middle of the beginning of the future. Yes, I know that sounds dramatic, but think about it...two justices change the complexion of the court. And there will be economic backlash from Katrina that has the possibility of putting us into a recession if the fed gov't doesn't play their cards right.

sigh.

I worry about where we will be in five years. I worry about what my civil rights will be. Hopefully, since there are two seats available, maybe the dems can get a liberal in there for Bush's conservative? (a la the West Wing. :muhaha) I wish.

gone
09-07-2005, 10:54 AM
Bush probably will appoint a liberal.

Of course, the whole danger with appointing justices is that when they actually get ON the court, they can do exactly as they please. Bush might think he's putting on a conservative, but they could be a liberal. It's all a gamble.

Civil rights will be fine. This is going to change the balance, of course, but I have always felt that grassroots movements and citizens have more power than Supreme Court decisions. If the country wants abortion, and the supreme court overturns Roe V. Wade, there will still be abortions, because people will make sure that they are available.