Someone provide me evidence why Roberts would be worse than Rehnquist

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Granted, this is just one man's opinion. But, it's a high decibel opinion. Yikes.

Alan Dershowitz: Telling the Truth About Chief Justice Rehnquist Alan Dershowitz
Mon Sep 5, 1:16 AM ET

My mother always told me that when a person dies, one should not say anything bad about him. My mother was wrong. History requires truth, not puffery or silence, especially about powerful governmental figures. And obituaries are a first draft of history. So here’s the truth about Chief Justice Rehnquist you won’t hear on Fox News or from politicians. Chief Justice William Rehnquist set back liberty, equality, and human rights perhaps more than any American judge of this generation. His rise to power speaks volumes about the current state of American values.

Let’s begin at the beginning. Rehnquist bragged about being first in his class at Stanford Law School. Today Stanford is a great law school with a diverse student body, but in the late 1940s and early 1950s, it discriminated against Jews and other minorities, both in the admission of students and in the selection of faculty. Justice Stephen Breyer recalled an earlier period of Stanford’s history: “When my father was at Stanford, he could not join any of the social organizations because he was Jewish, and those organizations, at that time, did not accept Jews.” Rehnquist not only benefited in his class ranking from this discrimination; he was also part of that bigotry. When he was nominated to be an associate justice in 1971, I learned from several sources who had known him as a student that he had outraged Jewish classmates by goose-stepping and heil-Hitlering with brown-shirted friends in front of a dormitory that housed the school’s few Jewish students. He also was infamous for telling racist and anti-Semitic jokes.

As a law clerk, Rehnquist wrote a memorandum for Justice Jackson while the court was considering several school desegregation cases, including Brown v. Board of Education. Rehnquist’s memo, entitled “A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases,” defended the separate-but-equal doctrine embodied in the 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Rehnquist concluded the Plessy “was right and should be reaffirmed.” When questioned about the memos by the Senate Judiciary Committee in both 1971 and 1986, Rehnquist blamed his defense of segregation on the dead Justice, stating – under oath – that his memo was meant to reflect the views of Justice Jackson. But Justice Jackson voted in Brown, along with a unanimous Court, to strike down school segregation. According to historian Mark Tushnet, Justice Jackson’s longtime legal secretary called Rehnquist’s Senate testimony an attempt to “smear[] the reputation of a great justice.” Rehnquist later admitted to defending Plessy in arguments with fellow law clerks. He did not acknowledge that he committed perjury in front of the Judiciary Committee to get his job.

The young Rehnquist began his legal career as a Republican functionary by obstructing African-American and Hispanic voting at Phoenix polling locations (“Operation Eagle Eye”). As Richard Cohen of The Washington Post wrote, “[H]e helped challenge the voting qualifications of Arizona blacks and Hispanics. He was entitled to do so. But even if he did not personally harass potential voters, as witnesses allege, he clearly was a brass-knuckle partisan, someone who would deny the ballot to fellow citizens for trivial political reasons -- and who made his selection on the basis of race or ethnicity.” In a word, he started out his political career as a Republican thug.

Rehnquist later bought a home in Vermont with a restrictive covenant that barred sale of the property to ''any member of the Hebrew race.”

Rehnquist’s judicial philosophy was result-oriented, activist, and authoritarian. He sometimes moderated his views for prudential or pragmatic reasons, but his vote could almost always be predicted based on who the parties were, not what the legal issues happened to be. He generally opposed the rights of gays, women, blacks, aliens, and religious minorities. He was a friend of corporations, polluters, right wing Republicans, religious fundamentalists, homophobes, and other bigots.

Rehnquist served on the Supreme Court for thirty-three years and as chief justice for nineteen. Yet no opinion comes to mind which will be remembered as brilliant, innovative, or memorable. He will be remembered not for the quality of his opinions but rather for the outcomes decided by his votes, especially Bush v. Gore, in which he accepted an Equal Protection claim that was totally inconsistent with his prior views on that clause. He will also be remembered as a Chief Justice who fought for the independence and authority of the judiciary. This is his only positive contribution to an otherwise regressive career.

Within moments of Rehnquist’s death, Fox News called and asked for my comments, presumably aware that I was a longtime critic of the late Chief Justice. After making several of these points to Alan Colmes (who was supposed to be interviewing me), Sean Hannity intruded, and when he didn’t like my answers, he cut me off and terminated the interview. Only after I was off the air and could not respond did the attack against me begin, which is typical of Hannity’s bullying ambush style. He is afraid to attack when there’s someone there to respond. Since the interview, I’ve received dozens of e-mail hate messages, some of which are overtly anti-Semitic. One writer called me “a jew prick that takes it in the a** from ruth ginzburg [sic].” Another said I am “an ignorant socialist left-wing political hack …. You’re like a little Heinrich Himmler! (even the resemblance is uncanny!).” Yet another informed me that I “personally make us all lament the defeat of the Nazis!” A more restrained viewer found me to be “a disgrace to the Law, to Harvard, and to humanity.”

All this, for refusing to put a deceptive gloss on a man who made his career undermining the rights and liberties of American citizens.

My mother would want me to remain silent, but I think my father would have wanted me to tell the truth. My father was right.

...

So, can someone cite me ways where Chief Roberts will be more horrific than Chief Rehnquist, besides the fact that Roberts isn't dead?

I'm not expecting Roberts to be a grand departure from Rehnquest by any means. And I know the paranoia surrounding Rehnquist's death has died down here. But I'm surrounded by friends who are especially FREAKING THE FUCK OUT about this -- and I just don't feel the freak. Sorry. This is why I'm making the request. So I can help calm some people down at least a little bit. I wish I had time to do this on my own for the time being, but I can't. :(

donut Get Behind Me Carbon Dioxide (donut), Tuesday, 6 September 2005 23:33 (twenty years ago)

"evidence" is the wrong word here. sorry. This is all speculation of course. but I'm looking for histories/actions of Roberts in particular that makes for a convincing case to freak out... and also for histories/actions of Roberts where it makes a case to NOT freak out.

donut Get Behind Me Carbon Dioxide (donut), Tuesday, 6 September 2005 23:36 (twenty years ago)

i'm not american and not overly familiar with american judicial appointments. but isn't the fact that he is only 50 of quite a bit concern to you? that means there will likely be 25-30 years of (by all accounts) a highly conservative appointment leading the supreme court. so even if he is only 'as bad' as rehnquist rather than worse, it probably does freak more progressive folk out?

gem (trisk), Tuesday, 6 September 2005 23:43 (twenty years ago)

PROG FOLK!

And you're sure Roberts will be there for 25-30 years.

donut Get Behind Me Carbon Dioxide (donut), Tuesday, 6 September 2005 23:50 (twenty years ago)

I'm not trying to be impetuous. I guess I don't necessary think of people as being short of immortal by default.

donut Get Behind Me Carbon Dioxide (donut), Tuesday, 6 September 2005 23:51 (twenty years ago)

obviously not, but surely there's a reasonable chance. how old was rehnquist when he kicked the bucket?

gem (trisk), Tuesday, 6 September 2005 23:52 (twenty years ago)

it was just a suggestion anyways, as per your request. also i read an article a couple of days ago about roberts proposing that abortion should not have been legalised. if that is an indicator of his legal policies, i would find that worrying too. as i said, i'm not very familiar with your judicial system. however, the trend of the australian high court to hard right wing politics is very certainly a factor of the conservative party being in government for four successive terms and making appointments accordingly. our last liberal high court judge is retiring in october and i'm very scared about who will be appointed in his place and what it will mean for legal developments in australia, in constitutional interpretation in particular. so i think i have sympathy for the 'freak outs' of your friends.

gem (trisk), Tuesday, 6 September 2005 23:55 (twenty years ago)

sorry, second last liberal high court judge. there is one lone ranger left up there.

gem (trisk), Tuesday, 6 September 2005 23:56 (twenty years ago)

I guess it's not so much that he would be worse, it's just that people feel they deserve a whole lot better. You know, the lesser of two evils isn't much consolation in these situations. I don't know I'm not from the US - it just seems like people were hoping against hope that a democrat might make the appointment, and now that hope is gone. He has the rest of his life to get a whole lot crazier.

KG, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 00:17 (twenty years ago)

Roberts as a replacement for Rehnquist is much better than Roberts as a replacement for O'Connor. It at least opens the possibility that someone ever so slightly more moderate will be the second nominee -- whereas it was unlikely that, had Roberts been confirmed in O'Connor's seat, the replacement for Rehnquist would be more moderate than hizzoner of the HMS Pinafore. Appointing more of a centrist to replace a hard-right guy like Rehnquist would be a really hard sell to the conservative base. Of course, they're gonna push for another hard-right nominee, but having already gotten one in Roberts, they're at a slight disadvantage. I think the whole situation works somewhat to the benefit of moderates and liberals, and somewhat to the detriment of true-blue right-wingers. I'm sure the true-blue right-wingers feel the same way. Why so many lefties don't understand this is a little puzzling. (None of which means Bush won't name another hard-right nominee, but I think even he'll understand it would be a heck of a fight and he might not win it.)

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 00:27 (twenty years ago)

And also, yeah, whatever he was like as colleague or spouse (a fine fellow, they all say) he was a horrorshow of a jurist.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 00:28 (twenty years ago)

yeah right, i didn't realise this freed up o'connor's seat, i hadn't thought about that. how many nominees are there likely to be for each position?

gem (trisk), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 00:31 (twenty years ago)

Well, only one nominee per position. Unless a nominee gets scotched by the Senate, then they have to offer another one. But I think that by consenting (however grudgingly) to Roberts -- which they were going to do anyway, even when he was filling O'Connor's seat -- Democrats give themselves some real leeway to fight very hard on the next one, including the old filibusteroonie.

That's why the hard right is nervous. Roberts for O'Connor was a conservative for a moderate. Roberts for Rehnquist is a conservative for a conservative, and makes it a little harder to follow up with another hard-right nominee. Not impossible, but more difficult. Especially since Bush is weaker now all the way around than he was six months ago. It will be interesting.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 00:47 (twenty years ago)

good points. your system definitely has some better aspects than ours i think.

gem (trisk), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 00:56 (twenty years ago)

I don't get the bitching about Rehnquist, unless "conservative" makes you salivate like a Pavlov dog. Honestly a Stevens-helmed court scares me just a bit more; his version of "liberalism" entails a vast increase of federal power which makes the contrarian in me VERY uncomfortable.

As for Rehnquist, he was much more pragmatic than he got credit for (and much more so than Scalia or Thomas). Read this article for a fair account of the Rehnquist court:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200504/rosen

Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 01:49 (twenty years ago)

Rehnquist was an asshole who was not that great a judge, and kind of weirdly taken with himself too for a Milwaukee guy. But sure, Alf, go with that whole "contrarian" thing, that's realpolitik for realz.

On the other hand, yeah, Rehnquist at least took his forced-to-be-centrist role as Chief Justice more seriously than, say, anyone will have to do in this benighted era.

Haikunym (Haikunym), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 01:56 (twenty years ago)

The record speaks for itself, Haikunym. It's much more difficult to stereotype Rehnquist than Scalia or Thomas.

Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 02:01 (twenty years ago)

it's much more difficult to stereotype franco than hitler or mussolini

j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 02:05 (twenty years ago)

The only thing I'm suffering from is sour grapes that it's not someone a bit more liberal making the appointment. However, that's just the way it's gotta be this time.

Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 02:05 (twenty years ago)

do US supreme court justices have a required retirement age?

gem (trisk), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 02:07 (twenty years ago)

Nope, they serve until they die or they've had enough. O'Connor's a bit of a rarity in that she's retiring instead of dead.

Rock Hardy (Rock Hardy), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 02:09 (twenty years ago)

haha blount I was gonna do that but with hitler, then came to my senses.

alf, what you say is true! except that scalia and thomas never actually worked to restrict the votes of non-whites, something that your beautifully-written but not-quite-comprehensive atlantic article completely leaves out. so I can BOTH stereotype him AND work off the actual historical record.

thomas as the chief justice is the only one that would scare me. scalia a distant second. it really doesn't matter, ultimately, except you have to be even-handed enough to preserve the illusion of fairness. thomas doesn't care about that, he's full-speed-ahead in a bad way.

Haikunym (Haikunym), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 02:16 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, if Rehnquist was "forced to be a centrist" it was only geographically by virtue of sitting in the middle. (Do chief justices sit in the middle? I'm not even sure of that, it's just what I imagine.) There was nothing centrist about Rehnquist's views or his record, he was an ideological conservative. That he wasn't a barking-mad ideological conservative of the Scalia/Thomas variety hardly makes him a moderate.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 04:45 (twenty years ago)

dershowitz's article reminds me of what i used to admire about him (until he turned pro-torture post-9/11).

rehnquist was such a creep, that he even made richard nixon's skin crawl. that says it all, i think.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 04:59 (twenty years ago)

arthur silber makes the case against Roberts due to his ruling on the Hamdan case,
...in which the court said, in essence, that in this time of war, the executive branch can do whatever it wants. Moreover, the executive’s wartime power is not to be questioned or restrained by anyone or anything: not by the courts, and not even by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. From the commentary I’ve seen, it appears that many people still do not understand why that opinion is so crucial, or what its implications are.

if i remember correctly, this was the case during which he was being interviewed for a higher job by one of the defendents, which could have colored his decision just slightly.

kingfish superman ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 05:49 (twenty years ago)

Democracy Now has a good run-down on the issues surrounding Roberts

Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 14:46 (twenty years ago)

do US supreme court justices have a required retirement age?

No. They have a lifetime appointment and the Constitution doesn't allow Congress to pass a law that would impose a retirement age. Retirement is entirely up to them.

Aimless (Aimless), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 15:03 (twenty years ago)

I've decided I think it's unfair that members of the judiciary aren't allowed to openly receive bribes from corporate and special-interest functionaries just because they never have to campaign for re-election.

TOMBOT, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 15:11 (twenty years ago)

I like donut and gypsy here because they are correct.

Alan Conceicao (Alan Conceicao), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 15:21 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.