Chief Justice Rehnquist Dies at 80 730
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.
Rest in peace my friend (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rest in peace my friend (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
Re:Armageddon is upon us! (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh yeah! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Rest in peace my friend (Score:1, Insightful)
Rest In Peace Sir.
Well fuck. (Score:3, Insightful)
Though I was not a big fan of Rhenquist -- many of his positions on the Court, his work in the Nixon administration, his fashion sense -- he surely will be better than whoever we get next.
Re:Oh yeah! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think as part of their duty to be informed on the issues that these people know what the internet is. Hell, they probably even use E-MAIL.
Not all old people are intrinsically tech-unsavvy. In particular, I dont think that SC justices can afford to be unsavvy; Their posistion is so important that it demands savvy as part of the job. And I DO think these people take their job seriously.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:YRO? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Oh yeah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if the next guy were 25, you'd still have a 1-in-50 chance of getting someone that has a clue how to run Windows Update, and then you'd be stuck with him for 60 years.
I'd rather have someone who knew the ins and outs of what huge corporations are allowed to do than someone who knows FORTRAN, and that kind of stuff usually takes a few decades to learn and to demonstrate that knowledge.
Of course, the next guy will be picked based on who his golfing buddies are, but still, oldness isn't a problem for most issues. Provided they're in good health, of course.
Re:Oh yeah! (Score:3, Insightful)
I was just having a conversation with a friend about technology when this news came out. I was asking him whether technology was really making our lives better, or whether it was making them different. While I'd like to have someone on the court who understands how to boot a machine (or better yet, what mkinitrd does), in some ways I wonder whether that would really be better. After all, we owe our whole existence as a nation to documents that are more than 200 years old (even older than that if you include the Magna Carta), so why should we think that the technological revolution that we're currently undergoing is making that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. While I think that Rehnquist was wrong with siding so strongly with copyright holders as he did in the Grokster case, I think that it was good to have someone considering the case who didn't have a copy of BitTorrent running in his office.
I, for one, would welcome another appointment like Rehnquist. Whether you agreed with his decisions or not, he was a man who was dedicated to his work.
Re:YRO? (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.
Re:Obvious issues... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Bush may actually have to pick somebody good (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A scary thought (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well fuck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Carter seems to have been the only president in the last century that hasn't appointed anyone to the Supreme Court.
Re:YRO? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:No cross-posting from the Democratic Undergroun (Score:3, Insightful)
A shame. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:those of us who aren't... (Score:4, Insightful)
>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.
look closer (Score:3, Insightful)
But when they want Terri Schaivo kept alive, they lament that the judges can't find a way to do it. They even pass specific laws to have judges look again, even after the judges (who do know their jobs) say there is nothing they can do.
This whole thing is a canard so the Repubs can undermine judges in preparating for the time when all these illegal deeds (locking people up without trial, DeLay's myriad election misdeeds) are declared illegal by the judges.
Furthermore, the whole idea that judges aren't there to read between the lines runs afoul of two things.
1. The whole point of the judicial branch is to interpret the law.
2. Anyone who has been to law school (or heck, watched The Paper Chase) knows that the law can never be completely specific. The world changes, the law doesn't change as quickly. It is invetiable judges will have to make determinations where the law doesn't cover.
I fully agree that when Congress acts, judges should follow those laws. I fully believe it is Congress' job to change the law. But when there are gaps, it is the Judicial branch's job to make determinations as to what should be done, at least until Congress can go back and make more specific laws.
So, the abortion thing comes up because there is no law specifically addressing it. Well, no law that wasn't found to conflict with the Constution, or more specifically the Bill of Rights.
See, a big part of the problem is the Constitution is the highest law of the land and it is terribly vague in many areas. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? That's the supreme law of the land, it's in the Constitution. It is up to a judge to determine what that means, barring an ammendment which clarifies it.
Anyway, this whole thing torques me off, since just last week Scalia was mouthing off, making the headlines in a way very unbecoming the staid image of the Judicial branch. And he will be our next Chief Justice. Yeech.
RIP (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A Rehnquist Story (Score:3, Insightful)
> "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.
Re:Rest in peace my friend (Score:3, Insightful)
Two sides to every story... (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 [aim.org]
OK, that's... interesting.
For those that don't have time to RTFA, here's a time-saving summary:
Re:Obvious issues... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh. Since Rehnquist was a conservative, replacing him with another conservative won't change the balance of the Court.
"Activist" judges create law by their decisions. OTOH, most judges want to try the case in front of them, or even better, to have the parties settle. That is as it should be. The courts should be trying to make themselves unnecessary. Judges usually don't want to find anything "new".
Conservative judges are typically "constructionists", meaning that they tend to view the law through the lens of authority. The Constitution, common law, statutory law, established case law are their authority, and their job is to make the system internally consistent.
Activist judges see their job as a means of achieving justice, regardless of what the current law is, whatever its source. And they think they know "justice" better than anyone else does. They think their job is to make the system consistent with external reality, not necessarily with past legal precedent.
Besides, Justices often don't behave the way they're expected to. I imagine it is a profound experience to become a USSC Justice, freeing one from any need to toe a party line. Also, in lower courts judges are primarily trying cases, while at the SCOTUS level they're primarily judging the law. Since they are judging both the merits of a case and the laws under which the case is being argued, it's hard to say how a particular Justice will rule on a case. A judge's track record and even any views expressed before being appointed to the Court are not necessarily predictive.
Re:he knew the danger (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Supreme Court justices tend to retire only for severe health reasons that prevent them from carrying out their duties. Praying for that is disgusting.
Re:One more time. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Rest in peace my friend (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well fuck. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Rest in peace my friend (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:YRO? (Score:5, Insightful)
And when it comes to individual rights, the Democrats are now the conservatives.
Basically, everything is fucked up and inverted.
Farewell good sir. (Score:5, Insightful)
Before anyone gets too carried away about abortion litmus tests, remember this.
US Constitution Article VI
LK
Re:One more time. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Obvious issues... (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you talking about? Neither of the words "god" or "creator" occur even once in the US Constitution. [house.gov] Meanwhile, in the Declaration of Independence [indiana.edu] 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.
He was scum (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:More power? How do you figure that? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
As much as I disliked his attitude... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
He didn't have any! (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not? Because it is so fraudulent? Or, more likely, they can't know in advance whether a Republican would benefit.
Make no mistake: Rhenquist disgraced his robes and acted as a partisan, not a judge. It's too bad he didn't die 30 years ago.
Let's not forget his early career suppressing minority votes in Arizona. He was a partisan thug.
Sincerity is an over-rated virtue (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Don't Panic! (Score:0, Insightful)
We just need to hold on until their corpses are 8 feet under.
Re:Armageddon is upon us! (Score:3, Insightful)
I still don't get why Kerry just did not say it like it was: politics IS flip-flopping. The last thing you want is someone unable to evolve their view on things, compromise. Especially in the sort of complex decisions that end up in Senate and Congress.. Indecisiveness (indecision?) can be a bad thing, for sure, but it doesn't do anybody any good to make things appear simpler or more clearcut than they really are, either.
And both parties treat this country's citizens like we're retarded.
Obviously I should not generalize -- and I definitely don't mean you personally -- but I must say, from where I'm standing, the average American (i.e. as manifest in polls, elections) shows alarmingly little criticism of government, period. Many argue the mainstream media help, but if people really wanted to know then the media would have to cover -- after all, the public is the product which a network sells to advertisers.
Anyway, that both parties jump on that apathy, use it to make the sheeple look away from what really matters to them and those they represent (corporations, in both cases, not Joe 6P) does not necessarily prove they are responsible for it -- although it is likely they would actively try to maintain it.
Re:The modern political spectrum. (Score:3, Insightful)
Liberals sit to the right. Conservatives sit to the far right. Libertarians are the far right version of Anarchism.
Re:Rest in peace my friend (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Yes, the commies were spies (Score:2, Insightful)
McCarthy goofed not by crusading against the very real Red Menace, but by making anti-communism look unjust, through sloppy targeting and lack of due process.
Re:He was scum (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rest in peace my friend (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the people are.
Re:The modern political spectrum. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The modern political spectrum. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The modern political spectrum. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Rest in peace my friend (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that neither you nor anyone you immediately know was planning on going before the supreme court any time soon, and as sad as it is when any one person dies, it really doesn't affect you. And you know it, so quit acting like you care.
Re:The modern political spectrum. (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed, we anarchists care about our fellow man. Which is why we understand that political freedom is nothing without economic freedom. And economic freedom is incompatible with wage slavery.
You libertarians just want to trade a government with constitutional limits, for a defacto state run by corporations or individual robber barons, whose only limit is how much money they have.
Since money makes money faster than hard work, equality in capitalism is an inherently unstable position. Tiny inequalities will be amplified until there dramatic differences in wealth, and thus power.
So you're more free under libertarianism because the government can't prohibit marijuana use. So what? Your boss can. To the average person in the working class, what's the difference?
Equality is a prerequisite for freedom, and capitalism is antithetical to equality.
Re:Oh yeah! (Score:3, Insightful)
When you have someone with the relevant years of legal experience. There's no second-guessing these appointments, once made they are made. The only real way to verify their qualifications is to review their cases. Obviously you need first a law degree (long education), then you will usually be doing menial jobs for a while before you even begin to gather cases worth reviewing. With one exception in the early 1800s, no supreme justice has been under the age of 40. This is how it should be.
That being said, there are some judges that are in fact knowledgable about computers and the internet, just like not all Internet gurus are born after 1980. You should also remember that their job doesn't require them to "understand" something as such, they can deal with a case about malfunctioning cars without understanding how a car works. What they need to know from a legal point of view is rather different from what an IT person would need to know.
Re:Yes, the commies were spies (Score:2, Insightful)
At the time the American Communist Party was taking orders (and money) from soviet Russia
I'm sure a few of the members were. Doesn't mean all the others were guilty by association.
idealizing revolution by military force, and encouraging members to lay low, hide their affiliation, and achieve strategic aims by stealth. Sounds like spies to me.
Thank you for proving my point. "They sound like spies, so they should be treated like spies. Who needs pesky little details like Due Process?"
There is no doubt that the USSR had active spies operating in the U.S. all throughout the Cold War. There is also no doubt that the vast majority of people that Joseph McCarthy maligned were guilty of nothing more than political naivete.
Re:The modern political spectrum. (Score:2, Insightful)
So how can one be rewarded for his achievements in an anarchistic society?
Are there Laws in such a society?
An officer of the law seems unequal with a regular citizen, are they allowed?
If not, who's to defend the helpless?
who's to stop crime and gangs from forming and enslaving others - thus indirectly defeting individual freedom...?
Re:One more time. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:A Rehnquist Story (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The modern political spectrum. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why I said "corporations or individual robber barons". It doesn't matter whether it's a massively powerful corporation, or one massively wealthy individual, wealth and thus power will tend to concentrate.
By the way, workers have freedom too.. you could always just not work for a company that doesn't pay you enough, unless you don't have enough skills/education to be "worth it".. or have you not taken an economics class?
Just stop working if you're not getting paid enough? That does't work if you're poor.
Re:More power? How do you figure that? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sixty years ago, you would have said: "Everyone can marry an individual of the same race. In other words, this is not a civil rights issue as we all have the same right. It's an attempt to alter our culture."
It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.
Impeach Bush NOW (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I am still waiting for the day that any (Score:3, Insightful)
You'll only need to wait as long as it takes you to wake up, Ogemaniac. I'm not talking about just your employer taking an interest in your off-duty activities (although that certainly does happen and you may be able to escape it if you have alternative employment options and there's no blacklisting going on). I'm talking about what happens when private interests become so powerful that government itself becomes little more than their handmaiden. Perhaps you say what you say because you don't feel all of the strings that are attached to you, and where you do feel them you don't see where they ultimately lead. I invoked the 'f' word because, as everyone around here knows by now, Benito Mussolini defined it as the marriage of corporate and state power.
So, my questions for Libertarians remain: What is to prevent unchecked private interests from growing so powerful that they are able to completely co-opt government, and thereby the military and police? Why should we not expect this to occur as the natural course of events? And finally, once this "marriage" of corporate and government power is complete, how can a "free" society continue to exist?