FREE TAPATALK APP

Kodiak · 25th October 2004, 09:47 AM

Justice Rehnquist diagnosed with Cancer.

Kodiak · 25th October 2004, 09:51 AM

I'd be really disappointed if the GOP pulled such an 11th hour fast-one, but then again, I was disappointed by Gore and the Dems when they played partisan during the recounts...

hgc · 25th October 2004, 09:55 AM

Too late. Any appointment after, I guess, May of this year would have already been too late to get the Dems to consider letting it through. In any case, any vacancy now would certainly wait until after the election, and in the case of a Kerry victory, after Jan 20 for action.

BPSCG · 25th October 2004, 10:04 AM

What hgc said. First time I've ever written that.

Kerberos · 25th October 2004, 10:15 AM

Aren't the leftist supposed to be the ones responsible for wacky anti-Conservative conspiracy theories? Has AUP become sick and asked you to stand in for him?

Brown · 25th October 2004, 10:36 AM

I concur with the judgment that a replacement could not be named and confirmed before the new presidential term starts.

Chances are pretty good there would need to be two Senate hearings: one to name a new justice, and one to name a new chief justice. It is possible, of course, that whoever is president could nominate a new justice and have that justice be chief. Considering the longevity of the current court, however, it might be deemed disrespectful for the chief executive to name a novice to lead the court.

It seems pretty clear that Rehnquist is on his way out. I found it somewhat odd that the MSNBC article made mention of Chief Justice Roger Taney, who was the infamous author of the Dred Scott decision.

Rob Lister · 25th October 2004, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
It is possible, of course, that whoever is president could nominate a new justice and have that justice be chief.

Is that possible? I admit to never considering it. I thought the chief justice position was at the pleasure of the other members of the court.

CFLarsen · 25th October 2004, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kerberos
Aren't the leftist supposed to be the ones responsible for wacky anti-Conservative conspiracy theories? Has AUP become sick and asked you to stand in for him?

You have no idea how putrid American politics can be.

hgc · 25th October 2004, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Is that possible? I admit to never considering it. I thought the chief justice position was at the pleasure of the other members of the court.

Nope, elevation to chief justice is by presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. It can happen all at once by nominating a chief justice to fill a vacancy in the chief's spot, or by nominating a sitting justice to be chief (which is how Renquist became chief when Warren Berger retired).

Kodiak · 25th October 2004, 11:01 AM

Thanks for the facts everyone. It seems my pessimism regarding American politics got the better of me.

So lets consider this one...

Could Kerry propel himself into the White House in these last few weeks before the election by playing on the now much more realistic fears of a Bush appointment if he were to be reelected?

Rob Lister · 25th October 2004, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
Thanks for the facts everyone. It seems my pessimism regarding American politics got the better of me.

So lets consider this one...

Could Kerry propel himself into the White House in these last few weeks before the election by playing on the now much more realistic fears of a Bush appointment if he were to be reelected?

That's a double-edged sword if I ever saw (read) one.

This news event does bring the SC issue to the top.

If all the voters suddenly realize what is at stake in regards to the supreme court, will Kerry get more support? I don't think so but I'm a bit biased. I think he'll lose some of the support he currently has.

BPSCG · 25th October 2004, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
Nope, elevation to chief justice is by presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. It can happen all at once by nominating a chief justice to fill a vacancy in the chief's spot, or by nominating a sitting justice to be chief (which is how Renquist became chief when Warren Berger retired).

And as it happened, neither Burger, nor his immediate predecessor, Earl Warren, were on the Court when they were appointed Chief Justice by Nixon and Eisenhower, respectively.

Useless SC trivia #1: Chief Justice Earl Warren was followed by Chief Justice Warren Earl (Burger).

Useless SC trivia #2: There is no such person as the "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court." His title is actually "Chief Justice of the United States."

hgc · 25th October 2004, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
Thanks for the facts everyone. It seems my pessimism regarding American politics got the better of me.

So lets consider this one...

Could Kerry propel himself into the White House in these last few weeks before the election by playing on the now much more realistic fears of a Bush appointment if he were to be reelected?

Unfortunately, a relatively small portion of the electorate is as motivated by the specter Republicans picking judges as I am. This plays to the base, and to a fraction of that.

BPSCG · 25th October 2004, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
Could Kerry propel himself into the White House in these last few weeks before the election by playing on the now much more realistic fears of a Bush appointment if he were to be reelected?

Yes, I can hear it now, in Kerry's stentorian tones:

"If William Rhenquist dies of throat cancer, who do you want appointing his successor?"

Do you think he'd be that insensitive...?

Regnad Kcin · 25th October 2004, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
...but then again, I was disappointed by Gore and the Dems when they played partisan during the recounts...

Much as I try to avoid smileys, sometimes one can't help but...

hgc · 25th October 2004, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
And as it happened, neither Burger, nor his immediate predecessor, Earl Warren, were on the Court when they were appointed Chief Justice by Nixon and Eisenhower, respectively.

Useless SC trivia #1: Chief Justice Earl Warren was followed by Chief Justice Warren Earl (Burger).

Useless SC trivia #2: There is no such person as the "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court." His title is actually "Chief Justice of the United States."

You should have stuck to your "what hgc said" stance.

Chief Justice Earl Warren (Eisenhower, 1953) was succeeded by Chief Justice Warren Berger (Nixon, 1969). Associate Justice William Rehquist (Nixon, 1971) was elevated to Chief Justice (Reagan, 1986) upon Berger's retirement.

Michael Redman · 25th October 2004, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
Unfortunately, a relatively small portion of the electorate is as motivated by the specter Republicans picking judges as I am. This plays to the base, and to a fraction of that.

I agree. Plus, most Americans probably don't know what the Supreme Court is, anyway.

hgc · 25th October 2004, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
You should have stuck to your "what hgc said" stance.

Chief Justice Earl Warren (Eisenhower, 1953) was succeeded by Chief Justice Warren Berger (Nixon, 1969). Associate Justice William Rehquist (Nixon, 1971) was elevated to Chief Justice (Reagan, 1986) upon Berger's retirement.

BPSCG: Please ignore this post. I didn't even read yours before responding.

BPSCG · 25th October 2004, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
BPSCG: Please ignore this post. I didn't even read yours before responding.

I'd always suspected that was a habit of yours...

mr rosewater · 25th October 2004, 12:30 PM

Why all the fuss, don't they have to pass the Senate. And who ever it is better be ready for a full public rectal exam.

hgc · 25th October 2004, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mr rosewater
Why all the fuss, don't they have to pass the Senate. And who ever it is better be ready for a full public rectal exam.

God bless you, mr rosewater.

Am I the first to say it?

Brown · 25th October 2004, 04:30 PM

At last word, the chief has had surgery for throat cancer. He expects to be back on the bench on Monday, November 1.

Rehnquist is usually very active in oral argument, but it is possible that he may have to be more subdued for a while.

It is not widely known that a recent article in Vanity Fair has discussed some of the behind-the-scenes activity in the Court as the Court prepared to award the 2000 election to Bush. It is not a pretty picture. Basically, the five justices who ruled in Bush's favor (including the chief) were intent upon reaching a desired outcome, and were not concerned with applying the law. The notion of being "result-oriented" (in which a judge decides first who s/he wants to win, then crafts an opinion to support that result) is generally regarded as being inconsistent with judicial power. A judge is not supposed to be an advocate for one side or another. A judge is supposed to apply the law fairly, without regard to who the parties are.

In Bush v. Gore, the five members of the majority did things for Bush that, had the tables been turned, they would never have done for Gore. The Vanity Fair article clearly suggests that the five members of the Court selected the result first, then tossed around legal bases to justify the result that they wanted.

The effect was a decision that put a hideous yellow stain on the Court's credibility, and that stain is still there. Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor have tried to minimize the stain by staying four years longer than they expected to stay. If they had retired during Bush's first term, the stain would be almost impossible to remove. Had they retired, they would be perceived--rightly--as personally benefitting from their actions in Bush v. Gore, by selecting a president that would preserve what they felt was the best ideology for the Court. But by staying on, Rehnquist and O'Connor can at least make a plausible argument that they did not benefit from their actions in 2000, and they can try to say to the country, "No harm done."

In fact, Bush v. Gore did do harm, not only to the country, but to the prestige and honor of the Court.

As I said when the Court issued its stay, which effectively decided the case, "He [Bush] had better be worth it!!" These five members of the Court tarnished their own reputations to give this guy the White House, and their sacrifice had better give us one of the best presidents we've ever had.

Instead, we got the worst president of modern times. Bush was not worth it.

Patrick · 25th October 2004, 04:49 PM

The Vanity Fair article clearly suggests that the five members of the Court selected the result first, then tossed around legal bases to justify the result that they wanted. The effect was a decision that put a hideous yellow stain on the Court's credibility, and that stain is still there.

Since you don't appear to be as stupid as some of the mice around here, I'll just call this disingenuous hokum. The USSC has done the result first reasoning last process throughout its history, going back to at least Madison vs Marbury. It's accelerated in the last 50 years, with Brown vs Board of Education, Roe vs Wade, and more recently the U of M cases.

Instead, we got the worst president of modern times.

Justify that. Use specific, preferably quantifiable comparisons with other presidents.

Patrick · 25th October 2004, 04:52 PM

Here's how this might shake out - Bush appoints Clarence Thomas as Chief. Then, when/if the libs subject him to the same stalling they've used for months, the republicans can screech "racism!" at them!

Otther · 25th October 2004, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Basically, the five justices who ruled in Bush's favor (including the chief) were intent upon reaching a desired outcome, and were not concerned with applying the law.

How seriously can those people be taken?

Quote:

"The reliability of the statements cannot be verified, and other clerks can't respond because they feel bound by the code,"

I mean, I find the possibility of this very bothersome... but I don't know if it really adds anything to the odds.

Brown · 25th October 2004, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Otther
How seriously can those people be taken?

If you mean the clerks whose accounts were the basis for the story, they can be taken quite seriously. There is quite a bit of evidence in the public record to corroborrate their stories. In addition, the responses to the story have pretty much been in the form of "non-denial denials."

And in a sense, the story basically confirms what trained court observers have said all along. It is not a surprise.

What would have been a surprise is a story that the five members were not adamantly result-oriented.

Charlie Monoxide · 25th October 2004, 08:22 PM

I voted "no", but I'd like to add I hope Rehnquist gets better. Cancer is an ugly population controlling mechanism.

Charlie (my sincere best wishes to Rehnquist & family) Monoxide

Dorian Gray · 25th October 2004, 10:32 PM

Quote:

I'd be really disappointed if the GOP pulled such an 11th hour fast-one, but then again, I was disappointed by Gore and the Dems when they played partisan during the recounts...

You act as though Republicans would have ceded the state willingly if the situation was reversed.

Quote:

Yes, I can hear it now, in Kerry's stentorian tones:

"If William Rhenquist dies of throat cancer, who do you want appointing his successor?"

Do you think he'd be that insensitive...?

You act as though Cheney wouldn't say something like that about Kerry first.

Quote:

Here's how this might shake out - Bush appoints Clarence Thomas as Chief. Then, when/if the libs subject him to the same stalling they've used for months, the republicans can screech "racism!" at them!

You act as though you know jack squat about anything.

Brown · 1st November 2004, 07:22 AM

Chief Justice Rehnquist expected to be back on the bench today. Instead, he is recuperating at home. (Story here.) According to the report, Rehnquist is receiving outpatient radiation and chemotherapy. He says he will continue to work on court matters from his home.

TragicMonkey · 1st November 2004, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
Chief Justice Rehnquist expected to be back on the bench today. Instead, he is recuperating at home. (Story here.) According to the report, Rehnquist is receiving outpatient radiation and chemotherapy. He says he will continue to work on court matters from his home.

A cover story. Clearly he picked up a copy of the new "Grand Theft Auto" this weekend, and is even now sitting at home in his ridiculously-striped robes doing drive by missions and tagging his gang's turf.

(Wish I had some sick days left.)

HarryKeogh · 1st November 2004, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
A cover story. Clearly he picked up a copy of the new "Grand Theft Auto" this weekend, and is even now sitting at home in his ridiculously-striped robes doing drive by missions and tagging his gang's turf.

(Wish I had some sick days left.)

that's a pretty funny image (and totally plausible story...I have had friends call in sick when certain games came out...of course they worked in convenience stores, not judges on the supreme court but same difference)

BPSCG · 2nd November 2004, 06:19 AM

Washington Post today says it sounds like he probably has the most aggressive, almost-always fatal version. One more reason to hope for a clear winner tonight; imagine a Supreme Court tied at 4-4, or a 5-4 vote with the deciding vote cast by a man who's desperately sick and heavily medicated.

Interesting possibility: We could have, after January 20, a the possibility of a Democratic Senate, a Democratic president, and a Supreme Court that leans 5-4 liberal.

Kodiak · 2nd November 2004, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
Washington Post today says it sounds like he probably has the most aggressive, almost-always fatal version. One more reason to hope for a clear winner tonight; imagine a Supreme Court tied at 4-4, or a 5-4 vote with the deciding vote cast by a man who's desperately sick and heavily medicated.

Interesting possibility: We could have, after January 20, a the possibility of a Democratic Senate, a Democratic president, and a Supreme Court that leans 5-4 liberal.

Thanks to the vehement anti-Bush sentiment and the incurably ignorant voting based solely on the views of their favorite pop star or movie hero, I think Kerry will win the popular vote by 2%-4%, though who knows how the electoral vote will go.

Brown · 2nd November 2004, 06:34 AM

I have many disagreements with William Rehnquist. Ever since Nixon appointed him, I have monitored his performance. He personified what many called the "Nixon court," which was not a complimentary term. I have found myself agreeing with some of his opinions, while disagreeing with many others. On the controversial cases, I often found his reasoning to be poorly thought out or more concerned with obtaining a desired result than with applying a principle of law for everybody to follow.

That said, I feel enormous sympathy for the man. I have watched some of my loved ones fall prey to cancer. It is an insidious, ugly disease, and brings misery not only to the patient but also to the patient's family.

My disagreements with Justice Rehnquist aside, I hope the man is able to cope and I hope he does not suffer.

25th October 2004, 09:47 AM	#1
Kodiak Ursus arctos middendorffi Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Eastpointe Posts: 3,279	Will Rehnquist Step Down Before the Election to Ensure a Bush Replacement? Justice Rehnquist diagnosed with Cancer.
	__________________ "The path you take is not as important as the way you travel it. Science and logic are man's best tools when walking the path of truth because, unlike religion, science and logic have no stake in the destination." c0rbin: "All those waging fingers from the sideline might mean something if the hands behind them did more than moralize." They say the meek shall inherit the Earth. They're wrong. The resilient and versatile will...

25th October 2004, 09:55 AM	#3
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,129	Too late. Any appointment after, I guess, May of this year would have already been too late to get the Dems to consider letting it through. In any case, any vacancy now would certainly wait until after the election, and in the case of a Kerry victory, after Jan 20 for action.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

25th October 2004, 10:04 AM	#4
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	What hgc said. First time I've ever written that.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

25th October 2004, 10:15 AM	#5
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Re: Will Rehnquist Step Down Before the Election to Ensure a Bush Replacement? Aren't the leftist supposed to be the ones responsible for wacky anti-Conservative conspiracy theories? Has AUP become sick and asked you to stand in for him?
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

25th October 2004, 10:51 AM	#8
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Re: Re: Will Rehnquist Step Down Before the Election to Ensure a Bush Replacement? Quote: Originally posted by Kerberos Aren't the leftist supposed to be the ones responsible for wacky anti-Conservative conspiracy theories? Has AUP become sick and asked you to stand in for him? You have no idea how putrid American politics can be.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

25th October 2004, 09:51 AM	#2
Kodiak Ursus arctos middendorffi Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Eastpointe Posts: 3,279	I'd be really disappointed if the GOP pulled such an 11th hour fast-one, but then again, I was disappointed by Gore and the Dems when they played partisan during the recounts...
	__________________ "The path you take is not as important as the way you travel it. Science and logic are man's best tools when walking the path of truth because, unlike religion, science and logic have no stake in the destination." c0rbin: "All those waging fingers from the sideline might mean something if the hands behind them did more than moralize." They say the meek shall inherit the Earth. They're wrong. The resilient and versatile will...

25th October 2004, 10:36 AM	#6
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,293	I concur with the judgment that a replacement could not be named and confirmed before the new presidential term starts. Chances are pretty good there would need to be two Senate hearings: one to name a new justice, and one to name a new chief justice. It is possible, of course, that whoever is president could nominate a new justice and have that justice be chief. Considering the longevity of the current court, however, it might be deemed disrespectful for the chief executive to name a novice to lead the court. It seems pretty clear that Rehnquist is on his way out. I found it somewhat odd that the MSNBC article made mention of Chief Justice Roger Taney, who was the infamous author of the Dred Scott decision.

25th October 2004, 10:48 AM	#7
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Quote: Originally posted by Brown It is possible, of course, that whoever is president could nominate a new justice and have that justice be chief. Is that possible? I admit to never considering it. I thought the chief justice position was at the pleasure of the other members of the court.

25th October 2004, 11:00 AM	#9
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,129	Quote: Originally posted by Rob Lister Is that possible? I admit to never considering it. I thought the chief justice position was at the pleasure of the other members of the court. Nope, elevation to chief justice is by presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. It can happen all at once by nominating a chief justice to fill a vacancy in the chief's spot, or by nominating a sitting justice to be chief (which is how Renquist became chief when Warren Berger retired).
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

25th October 2004, 11:01 AM	#10
Kodiak Ursus arctos middendorffi Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Eastpointe Posts: 3,279	Thanks for the facts everyone. It seems my pessimism regarding American politics got the better of me. So lets consider this one... Could Kerry propel himself into the White House in these last few weeks before the election by playing on the now much more realistic fears of a Bush appointment if he were to be reelected?
	__________________ "The path you take is not as important as the way you travel it. Science and logic are man's best tools when walking the path of truth because, unlike religion, science and logic have no stake in the destination." c0rbin: "All those waging fingers from the sideline might mean something if the hands behind them did more than moralize." They say the meek shall inherit the Earth. They're wrong. The resilient and versatile will...

25th October 2004, 11:09 AM	#11
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Quote: Originally posted by Kodiak Thanks for the facts everyone. It seems my pessimism regarding American politics got the better of me. So lets consider this one... Could Kerry propel himself into the White House in these last few weeks before the election by playing on the now much more realistic fears of a Bush appointment if he were to be reelected? That's a double-edged sword if I ever saw (read) one. This news event does bring the SC issue to the top. If all the voters suddenly realize what is at stake in regards to the supreme court, will Kerry get more support? I don't think so but I'm a bit biased. I think he'll lose some of the support he currently has.

25th October 2004, 11:30 AM	#12
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Quote: Originally posted by hgc Nope, elevation to chief justice is by presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. It can happen all at once by nominating a chief justice to fill a vacancy in the chief's spot, or by nominating a sitting justice to be chief (which is how Renquist became chief when Warren Berger retired). And as it happened, neither Burger, nor his immediate predecessor, Earl Warren, were on the Court when they were appointed Chief Justice by Nixon and Eisenhower, respectively. Useless SC trivia #1: Chief Justice Earl Warren was followed by Chief Justice Warren Earl (Burger). Useless SC trivia #2: There is no such person as the "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court." His title is actually "Chief Justice of the United States."
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

25th October 2004, 11:31 AM	#13
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,129	Quote: Originally posted by Kodiak Thanks for the facts everyone. It seems my pessimism regarding American politics got the better of me. So lets consider this one... Could Kerry propel himself into the White House in these last few weeks before the election by playing on the now much more realistic fears of a Bush appointment if he were to be reelected? Unfortunately, a relatively small portion of the electorate is as motivated by the specter Republicans picking judges as I am. This plays to the base, and to a fraction of that.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

25th October 2004, 11:33 AM	#14
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Quote: Originally posted by Kodiak Could Kerry propel himself into the White House in these last few weeks before the election by playing on the now much more realistic fears of a Bush appointment if he were to be reelected? Yes, I can hear it now, in Kerry's stentorian tones: "If William Rhenquist dies of throat cancer, who do you want appointing his successor?" Do you think he'd be that insensitive...?
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

25th October 2004, 11:34 AM	#15
Regnad Kcin Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: The ol' Same place Posts: 6,275	Quote: Originally posted by Kodiak ...but then again, I was disappointed by Gore and the Dems when they played partisan during the recounts... Much as I try to avoid smileys, sometimes one can't help but...
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

25th October 2004, 11:38 AM	#16
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,129	Quote: Originally posted by BPSCG And as it happened, neither Burger, nor his immediate predecessor, Earl Warren, were on the Court when they were appointed Chief Justice by Nixon and Eisenhower, respectively. Useless SC trivia #1: Chief Justice Earl Warren was followed by Chief Justice Warren Earl (Burger). Useless SC trivia #2: There is no such person as the "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court." His title is actually "Chief Justice of the United States." You should have stuck to your "what hgc said" stance. Chief Justice Earl Warren (Eisenhower, 1953) was succeeded by Chief Justice Warren Berger (Nixon, 1969). Associate Justice William Rehquist (Nixon, 1971) was elevated to Chief Justice (Reagan, 1986) upon Berger's retirement.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

25th October 2004, 11:41 AM	#17
Michael Redman Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: St. Paul, MN Posts: 3,063	Quote: Originally posted by hgc Unfortunately, a relatively small portion of the electorate is as motivated by the specter Republicans picking judges as I am. This plays to the base, and to a fraction of that. I agree. Plus, most Americans probably don't know what the Supreme Court is, anyway.
	__________________ The rule is perfect; in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane. - Mark Twain

25th October 2004, 11:44 AM	#18
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,129	Quote: Originally posted by hgc You should have stuck to your "what hgc said" stance. Chief Justice Earl Warren (Eisenhower, 1953) was succeeded by Chief Justice Warren Berger (Nixon, 1969). Associate Justice William Rehquist (Nixon, 1971) was elevated to Chief Justice (Reagan, 1986) upon Berger's retirement. BPSCG: Please ignore this post. I didn't even read yours before responding.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

25th October 2004, 12:05 PM	#19
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Quote: Originally posted by hgc BPSCG: Please ignore this post. I didn't even read yours before responding. I'd always suspected that was a habit of yours...
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

25th October 2004, 12:30 PM	#20
mr rosewater Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 610	Why all the fuss, don't they have to pass the Senate. And who ever it is better be ready for a full public rectal exam.
mr rosewater Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 610

25th October 2004, 12:42 PM	#21
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,129	Quote: Originally posted by mr rosewater Why all the fuss, don't they have to pass the Senate. And who ever it is better be ready for a full public rectal exam. God bless you, mr rosewater. Am I the first to say it?
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

25th October 2004, 04:30 PM	#22
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,293	At last word, the chief has had surgery for throat cancer. He expects to be back on the bench on Monday, November 1. Rehnquist is usually very active in oral argument, but it is possible that he may have to be more subdued for a while. It is not widely known that a recent article in Vanity Fair has discussed some of the behind-the-scenes activity in the Court as the Court prepared to award the 2000 election to Bush. It is not a pretty picture. Basically, the five justices who ruled in Bush's favor (including the chief) were intent upon reaching a desired outcome, and were not concerned with applying the law. The notion of being "result-oriented" (in which a judge decides first who s/he wants to win, then crafts an opinion to support that result) is generally regarded as being inconsistent with judicial power. A judge is not supposed to be an advocate for one side or another. A judge is supposed to apply the law fairly, without regard to who the parties are. In Bush v. Gore, the five members of the majority did things for Bush that, had the tables been turned, they would never have done for Gore. The Vanity Fair article clearly suggests that the five members of the Court selected the result first, then tossed around legal bases to justify the result that they wanted. The effect was a decision that put a hideous yellow stain on the Court's credibility, and that stain is still there. Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor have tried to minimize the stain by staying four years longer than they expected to stay. If they had retired during Bush's first term, the stain would be almost impossible to remove. Had they retired, they would be perceived--rightly--as personally benefitting from their actions in Bush v. Gore, by selecting a president that would preserve what they felt was the best ideology for the Court. But by staying on, Rehnquist and O'Connor can at least make a plausible argument that they did not benefit from their actions in 2000, and they can try to say to the country, "No harm done." In fact, Bush v. Gore did do harm, not only to the country, but to the prestige and honor of the Court. As I said when the Court issued its stay, which effectively decided the case, "He [Bush] had better be worth it!!" These five members of the Court tarnished their own reputations to give this guy the White House, and their sacrifice had better give us one of the best presidents we've ever had. Instead, we got the worst president of modern times. Bush was not worth it.

25th October 2004, 04:49 PM	#23
Patrick Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,224	The Vanity Fair article clearly suggests that the five members of the Court selected the result first, then tossed around legal bases to justify the result that they wanted. The effect was a decision that put a hideous yellow stain on the Court's credibility, and that stain is still there. Since you don't appear to be as stupid as some of the mice around here, I'll just call this disingenuous hokum. The USSC has done the result first reasoning last process throughout its history, going back to at least Madison vs Marbury. It's accelerated in the last 50 years, with Brown vs Board of Education, Roe vs Wade, and more recently the U of M cases. Instead, we got the worst president of modern times. Justify that. Use specific, preferably quantifiable comparisons with other presidents.
Patrick Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,224

25th October 2004, 04:52 PM	#24
Patrick Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,224	Here's how this might shake out - Bush appoints Clarence Thomas as Chief. Then, when/if the libs subject him to the same stalling they've used for months, the republicans can screech "racism!" at them!
Patrick Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,224

25th October 2004, 04:52 PM	#25
Otther Thinker Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 172	Quote: Basically, the five justices who ruled in Bush's favor (including the chief) were intent upon reaching a desired outcome, and were not concerned with applying the law. How seriously can those people be taken? Quote: "The reliability of the statements cannot be verified, and other clerks can't respond because they feel bound by the code," I mean, I find the possibility of this very bothersome... but I don't know if it really adds anything to the odds.
Otther Thinker Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 172

25th October 2004, 05:09 PM	#26
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,293	Quote: Originally posted by Otther How seriously can those people be taken? If you mean the clerks whose accounts were the basis for the story, they can be taken quite seriously. There is quite a bit of evidence in the public record to corroborrate their stories. In addition, the responses to the story have pretty much been in the form of "non-denial denials." And in a sense, the story basically confirms what trained court observers have said all along. It is not a surprise. What would have been a surprise is a story that the five members were not adamantly result-oriented.

25th October 2004, 08:22 PM	#27
Charlie Monoxide Wag Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 2,761	I voted "no", but I'd like to add I hope Rehnquist gets better. Cancer is an ugly population controlling mechanism. Charlie (my sincere best wishes to Rehnquist & family) Monoxide
	__________________ Major General Wag of JREF

25th October 2004, 10:32 PM	#28
Dorian Gray Hypocrisy Detector Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 20,210	Quote: I'd be really disappointed if the GOP pulled such an 11th hour fast-one, but then again, I was disappointed by Gore and the Dems when they played partisan during the recounts... You act as though Republicans would have ceded the state willingly if the situation was reversed. Quote: Yes, I can hear it now, in Kerry's stentorian tones: "If William Rhenquist dies of throat cancer, who do you want appointing his successor?" Do you think he'd be that insensitive...? You act as though Cheney wouldn't say something like that about Kerry first. Quote: Here's how this might shake out - Bush appoints Clarence Thomas as Chief. Then, when/if the libs subject him to the same stalling they've used for months, the republicans can screech "racism!" at them! You act as though you know jack squat about anything.
	__________________ "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka "Rational arguments don't work on religious people. If they did, there wouldn't be any religious people." - House Additionally to Carlin being funnier than Izzard, I think Dorian is funnier than the Marquis. - Ron Tomkins

1st November 2004, 07:22 AM	#29
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,293	Chief Justice Rehnquist expected to be back on the bench today. Instead, he is recuperating at home. (Story here.) According to the report, Rehnquist is receiving outpatient radiation and chemotherapy. He says he will continue to work on court matters from his home.

1st November 2004, 07:34 AM	#30
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,285	Quote: Originally posted by Brown Chief Justice Rehnquist expected to be back on the bench today. Instead, he is recuperating at home. (Story here.) According to the report, Rehnquist is receiving outpatient radiation and chemotherapy. He says he will continue to work on court matters from his home. A cover story. Clearly he picked up a copy of the new "Grand Theft Auto" this weekend, and is even now sitting at home in his ridiculously-striped robes doing drive by missions and tagging his gang's turf. (Wish I had some sick days left.)
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

1st November 2004, 07:51 AM	#31
HarryKeogh Catholic School Survivor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 11,342	Quote: Originally posted by TragicMonkey A cover story. Clearly he picked up a copy of the new "Grand Theft Auto" this weekend, and is even now sitting at home in his ridiculously-striped robes doing drive by missions and tagging his gang's turf. (Wish I had some sick days left.) that's a pretty funny image (and totally plausible story...I have had friends call in sick when certain games came out...of course they worked in convenience stores, not judges on the supreme court but same difference)

2nd November 2004, 06:19 AM	#32
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Washington Post today says it sounds like he probably has the most aggressive, almost-always fatal version. One more reason to hope for a clear winner tonight; imagine a Supreme Court tied at 4-4, or a 5-4 vote with the deciding vote cast by a man who's desperately sick and heavily medicated. Interesting possibility: We could have, after January 20, a the possibility of a Democratic Senate, a Democratic president, and a Supreme Court that leans 5-4 liberal.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

2nd November 2004, 06:27 AM	#33
Kodiak Ursus arctos middendorffi Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Eastpointe Posts: 3,279	Quote: Originally posted by BPSCG Washington Post today says it sounds like he probably has the most aggressive, almost-always fatal version. One more reason to hope for a clear winner tonight; imagine a Supreme Court tied at 4-4, or a 5-4 vote with the deciding vote cast by a man who's desperately sick and heavily medicated. Interesting possibility: We could have, after January 20, a the possibility of a Democratic Senate, a Democratic president, and a Supreme Court that leans 5-4 liberal. Thanks to the vehement anti-Bush sentiment and the incurably ignorant voting based solely on the views of their favorite pop star or movie hero, I think Kerry will win the popular vote by 2%-4%, though who knows how the electoral vote will go.
	__________________ "The path you take is not as important as the way you travel it. Science and logic are man's best tools when walking the path of truth because, unlike religion, science and logic have no stake in the destination." c0rbin: "All those waging fingers from the sideline might mean something if the hands behind them did more than moralize." They say the meek shall inherit the Earth. They're wrong. The resilient and versatile will...

2nd November 2004, 06:34 AM	#34
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,293	I have many disagreements with William Rehnquist. Ever since Nixon appointed him, I have monitored his performance. He personified what many called the "Nixon court," which was not a complimentary term. I have found myself agreeing with some of his opinions, while disagreeing with many others. On the controversial cases, I often found his reasoning to be poorly thought out or more concerned with obtaining a desired result than with applying a principle of law for everybody to follow. That said, I feel enormous sympathy for the man. I have watched some of my loved ones fall prey to cancer. It is an insidious, ugly disease, and brings misery not only to the patient but also to the patient's family. My disagreements with Justice Rehnquist aside, I hope the man is able to cope and I hope he does not suffer.