Addendum: the Washington state election shows that whining about results you don’t like is not limited to the Democrats. The GOP lost. Period.
Bush-despising, supposed “liberal” here. I have been aghast at many of the decisions where Rehnquist presided over the majority, and even more aghast at some of the times when he was a major dissenting voice. Bush v. Gore was a travesty, etc. At least there’s Scalia, compared to whom Rehnquist doesn’t seem all that terrible.
However. I can’t see how calling him the “worst Chief Justice in U.S. History” makes any kind of sense. It is clear to me that, despite my difference of opinion, Rehnquist took on the job with authority and intelligence. I wish I could dispel nagging doubts about Republican toadying leading to SCOTUS decisions in the sole interest of the Republican party, and against what might be beneficial for all Americans, but I have no rational basis for those doubts.
Knorf has just said most of what I would have said. Also, Elvis, in the impeachment of MY favorite recent president, at no point did I detect in Rhenquist any sign of “near-gleeful” deportment. My reading of Rhenquist’s demeanor throughout the whole thing was that he could already smell that the impeachment would hang.
Certainly, you’ve equated a man’s duty to preside over impeachment hearings and a controversial decision in a dead heat of a race as “undermining democracy”. You consider it equivalent or worse than a decision that you even admit lead to over a half million dead Americans.
There was an article in the The Atlantic in April (it’s not online, that I can tell) that argued favorably for Rehnquist as avery good Chief Justice, especialy in regards to his administrative abilities, which is a large portion of the CJs responsibilities.
I’m pretty much in the same boat. I strongly disagree with where Rehnquist came out on most of the controversial issues before the court, but I don’t see any evidence that he did a poor or incompetent job as chief justice. And, I do appreciate the fact that he had recently been speaking out against the ideas of the far-right crackpots in Congress and elsewhere who are trying to undermine judicial independence. In fact, I noted that this weekend many of the Democrats in Congress have specifically praised his speaking out for a strong independent judiciary.
Err . . . I think I basically said that in a later paragraph in my post along with a modern day example of how state citizenship does not always equal federal citizenship. Taney’s point was that a state can make a citizen out of anyone they damn well please (sounds like state soverignty to me) but that act does not make them a citizen of the US.
As for judicial review, wasn’t *Marbury v Madison * first? Dred Scott was the second case to use JR. As for Taney and judicial activism, his declaration of the unconstitutionality of Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and his reliance on the intention of the Framers (as ill-informed as he was) would make him a strict contitutionalist.
My lengthy post was that there is a lot more going on in the *Dred Scott * decision than people usually discuss (I didn’t even cover the lack of effort abolitionists made to support Scott). If you want to claim that despite his best efforts Taney was still a racist at heart, fine; but at least give him credit for the anti-slavery effort he made. If you want to blame him for the horrible error made in Dred Scott that blacks (free or slave) had no rights under the Constitution, I agree with you; but let’s look at the role the President and other Justices had in that.
Lastly, if Taney is remembered for Dred Scott, why aren’t we also discussing Chief Justice Melville Fuller in this thread? He basically wiped away the efforts of the Civil War and Reconstruction with the Plessy v Ferguson decision. I’ll tell you why we aren’t discussing him . . . he was smart enough to get someone else to write the decision.
It’s hard to say how Bush v Gore could have been ruled any differently. Kathleen Harris was following a state law requiring her to certify the election by a certain day. The emergency clause that the Democrats pointed to was for just that - an emergency (flood, hurricane, alligator attack). I also think applying the “one person, one vote” interpretation of the equal protection clause was accurate. I keep remembering watching the canvassing boards thinking, “Shouldn’t all the counties use the same criteria when counting votes?” If my dimpled chad vote doesn’t count in Duval county but it does for someone in Dade county, that is not “one person, one vote”. Had the recounts given Florida to Gore, you know that Bush would have ask for recounts in Republican counties. Eventually someone has to step in and say enough is enough.
For all of you who disagree with the ruling, tell me what the ruling should have been. Continual recounts under a nebulous idea of what constitutes a vote that varies from county to county? Recounts under a strict defintion of what constitutes a vote given by the Secretary of State? A “we’re sure Gore got more votes so give the election to him” ruling? A Rutherford B. Hayes/Samuel Tiden style commision? A violation of state soveignty by having the SC tell Florida how to count votes? What would have made you happy? And no “make sure every vote counts” please - be specific.
Judge Harry Claiborne was removed from office in 1986 being impeached and convicted of only one crime - perjury. This means that many of the senators that voted to convict him were also on the same jury that ruled on President Clinton’s trial, including twenty-seven Democrats. After Claiborne, two other judges were convicted by the Senate for perjury (Hastings and Nixon). Strangely enough, many of these Democratic Senators voted for conviction in all three cases, yet during Clinton’s impeachment, most of them now claimed that perjury was NOT impeachable and certainly not worthy of removal from office.
Even MORE interestingly, Claiborne asked for a dismissal of the charges claiming that judges were held to different standards than other federal officers. The Democratic-controlled Senate rejected this motion claiming the standard was the same for every civil officer. During Clinton’s impeachment when Republicans pointed out the perjury convictions of the three judges, the Democrats (some who had voted against Claiborne’s motion) claimed that perjury by a judge is more onerous (hence impeachable) than perjury by a president since a judge is an officer of the court and is appointed for life (i.e. does not run for re-election).
So where does Rehnquist fit into all of that backstory of why Clinton was impeached and why the Republicans were so frustrated with the Democrat view that “perjury is not impeachable”?
Beatcha. 
How about by not taking the case at all, letting state election law be ruled by the state supreme court, as a principled federalist would argue? The lower appeals courts wouldn’t touch it, ya know.
Then all the votes that weren’t counted should have been, right?
Eventually the stalling has to stop and the process has to be completed.
Not to have taken a case not in their purview. Failing that, that the state SC was the ultimate authority over state election law, which required counting by “the clear intent of the voter”. They had a chance to uphold the principle of equal protection, but instead subverted it. The Florida court was indeed beginning its work of clarifying those standards when hijacked.
Do you understand that federal judges have lifetime appointments and that the *only * way to remove one is through impeachment? Or that the people have no direct say in selecting them in the first place? That the Senate is responsible for approving their appointments and is therefore appropriately the body responsible for ending them? Now compare that to the situation for officials elected by the people, for finite terms, and see where that line of reasoning gets you.
When it is a violation of “one person, one vote” in a Federal election, it is in the SC’s jurisdiction (at least Federal Court) under the 14th Amendment. My other question (I honestly can’t remember this) is how they were able to throw out the state law regarding the certification timeline of results.
What criteria was set up for determining the intent of the voter? It varied from county to county. IMHO, Florida’s SC is to blame by not immediately setting up one standard to use statewide. Once a standard is set up that everyone (Demos and Reps) has to abide by then by all means count all the votes.
Florida was an ugly situation on both sides with the Democrat-controlled canvassing board grandstanding in Dade County, the Republicans accusing (but never proving) counties of purposely not counting oversea absentee ballots from the military. Both parties going to the courts of their choice getting conflicting rulings by partisan judges. I don’t know who got the most votes in Florida and no one ever will. Washington in 2004 showed that on a lesser scale that despite the new laws, the same crap still happens. As long as we rely on “intent of the voter” to interpret dimpled chads, dots in circles, or any other way a voter can screw up we will always have judges involved. The problem with Florida was that it was a Federal election . . . but not really thanks to the electoral college system. I think Rehnquist made the right decision here, not because of how he ruled but because I hate idiots who fuck up elections by not knowing how to use a voting machine.
Gee no, I have no understanding of how a judgehood works. :smack:
The point was that Judge Claibourne raised this in his argument during his trial, that the impeachment process was biased since they hold judges to different standards (i.e. impeached for lesser offenses) than executive officers. Rather than using your argument (which I agree with by the way), the Democratic senators stated that judicial officers and executive officers were held to the same standards of conduct - clearly not anticipating that they would have to backpedal 12 years later.
Not according to Ruth Bader Ginsburg (not known for her sympathy with the Right):
I know we’re not going to redo Bush V Gore. I disagree with the decision.
However, the only thing Gore could have gotten was to put the election into the House of Representatives. They’re going to vote Bush.
The Senate might have been interesting. It would have been a Constituional mess. Gore, as President of the Senate, would have been sitting over a 50/50 Senate. Still, having Joe Lieberman as VP under Bush would have been insane. Perhaps Jeffords would have voted differently?
Do you really think that what somebody publically says about someone the day after they died is a true reflection of their opinion? If Jimmy Carter drops dead tomorrow, President Bush will say some really great things about him. But that doesn’t mean Bush is planning on becoming a Democrat.
If Ginsburg thought Rehquist even came close to being the worst CJ in history, I’m sure she would have said nothing rather than tell the whopper that the above cited statement would have been.
She wouldn’t have said that even if she had thought he was average. She either would have said nothing, or released a statement made up of 50% obvious truths and 50% vague, meaningless platitudes. Something like
“The Chief Justice was a brilliant man and fought hard for what believed in. He had a tremendous impact on American jurisprudence, and his legal analysis on the important issues before the Court during his tenure will be studied and followed far into the future. He continued to fulfill his duties eveb while battling a terrible disease. My thoughts are with his family.”
See? She could truthfully say that, even if she hated his guts. She wouldn’t call him the best boss she’s ever had unless it were true.
I think you’re reading way too much into Ginsburg’s statement, but if that’s the way we’re going, I’ll point out she didn’t call Rehnquist the “best boss she ever had”, she said he was the “most efficient boss” she had. And you’ll note that while she said nice things about him personally, she never said he was a good judge or that he made good decisions.
I hope you don’t write letters of reference - they’d be totally inscrutable! 
That deals only with the drawing of district boundaries. Not at issue here.
You bought the spin that the December 12 date was a deadline by which it had to be done. Nope. That was the date after which the result could not be challenged - which made it a deadline only for those desperately trying to keep the interim result they favored in place, equal protection be damned.
We were about to find out when Rehnquist & Co. prevented them from doing so. But, oh look, you said
.
[/quote]
Won’t wonders never be?
More of the old reliable “Oh yeah? Well, you guys do it too! Or at least you would if you could” crap.
Only one party was trying to stop the vote count. You also have no basis other than whom the result favored for calling any of the Florida judges involved “partisan”.
Yes, we do. Gore did, per any plausible real-world scenario for counting all the votes by “the clear intent of the voter”.
So are you *ever * going to elaborate on your charge that votes there were being “manufactured”, or is that just more partisan spin? Your lack of a reply is telling.
In our system of democracy, elections are the province and responsibility solely of the voters, be they idiots or not. It’s something we, at least most of us anyway, hold precious. Are you really content to dispense with that? Do you really accept elections being shams?
You’re going to have to provide a cite for the wording they used themselves, not the spun version you’re giving us.
BTW, if you’re claiming that both Scott and Plessy were worse than anything the Rehnquist court ever did, that’s fine, but it’s not a ringing endorsement, ya know?
Bricker, you seem to be unfazed by the observation that the SC’s rulings have to be based in reality as well as the hermetic world of jurisprudential navel-gazing.
Ginsburg’s comments, agreed, were the ones required of her at this moment by simple human courtesy, and do not necessarily reflect at all upon her true feelings.
No. That’s not what she said. Although I agree that she didn’t use the work “best”, her accolade went well beyond “efficient”. You just couldn’t bring yourself to admit that she used the superlative of fair, could you?
Why did I summarize by using “best”? Let’s see if we can agree on what makes a good judge. I think most people would say that the top three attributes are fairness, efficiency, and legal ability, not necessarily in that order. (Legal ability incorporates intelligence/analytical skill and legal knowledge. Efficiency incorporates work ethic and management skills. Fairness doesn’t need further description.)
No one can seriously doubt that Rehnquist was an intelligent, knowledgable judge. If that’s a given, then to say that
is the highest praise. Even speaking of bosses generally, fairness and efficiency are what’s important, especially from the point of view of a subordinate.
And then (after more specifics) she concludes:
I agree with your point that comments (by people who aren’t jerks, anyway) immediately following a death are not always the fullest and frankest expression of the speaker’s true feelings. However, one can tell the difference between a statement made up of generalities, or that avoids all obvious themes, and one that is full of specifics, with little or no politician-speak.
True, she may not have agreed with his legal philosophy or reasoning in every case. So she left that out. But if she thought that his judicial approach was dishonest, stupid, extremist, or motivated by anything other than the good faith efforts of a smart man to do his job, she wouldn’t have said what she did.