HOLY CRAP!!! Rehnquist Dead

[JPhillips]

Just saw this on another site. Going to CNN to confirm.

Yep, its the top banner on CNN, but no link to a story.

[Cringer]

Wow, yup they are showing it on CNN right now.

[JPhillips]

Have there been two vacancies at once since the court was formed?

[JeffNights]

Rest in Peace and thanks for his service to the nation for these many years.

[JPhillips]

I know it just happened but could they at least have taken a few seconds to proff this awful AP article?

Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist Dies

* Sign In to E-Mail This
* Printer-Friendly
* Reprints

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 3, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died Saturday evening at his home in suburban Virginia, said Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg.

A statement from the spokeswoman said he was surrounded by his three children when he died in Arlington.

"The Chief Justice battled thyroid cancer since being diagnosed last October and continued to perform his dues on the court until a precipitous decline in his health the last couple of days," she said.

Rehnquist was appointed to the Supreme Court as an associate justice in 1971 by President Nixon and took his seat on Jan. 7, 1982. He was elevated to chief justice by President Reagan in 1986.

His death ends a remarkable 33-year Supreme Court career during which Rehnquist oversaw the court's conservative shift, presided over an impeachment trial and helped decide a presidential election.

The death President Bush his second court opening within pour months and sets up what's expected to be an even more bruising Senate confirmation battle than that of John Roberts.

Rehnquist, 80 and ill with cancer, presided over President Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999, helped settle the 2000 presidential election in Bush's favor, and fashioned decisions over the years that diluted the powers of the federal government while strengthening those of the states

[mhass]

RIP

Mr. Bush has a bit of a full plate about now. Times like these make or break a presidency.

[DaddyTorgo]

fuck fuck fuck. i don't want to politicize this thread, so i'll keep my opinions to myself, but let me just say that i am not happy about this one bit.

[Galaxy]

A sad week for the country right now with Katrina and this.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

fuck fuck fuck. i don't want to politicize this thread, so i'll keep my opinions to myself, but let me just say that i am not happy about this one bit.

".

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Izulde

".

???

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

???

Common forum convention indicating agreement.

[ISiddiqui]

HOLY SHIT!

Well there comes the 2nd open spot on the SCOTUS.

RIP

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Common forum convention indicating agreement.

well that's what i assumed the period meant. didn't understand the quotation mark, that's all.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

fuck fuck fuck. i don't want to politicize this thread, so i'll keep my opinions to myself, but let me just say that i am not happy about this one bit.

I'm sure Rehnquist isn't too happy about this either. . .

[Huckleberry]

" = ditto

[Young Drachma]

Wow, this is shocking..but only because we hadn't quite swallowed the whole Roberts deal yet to be thrown this curveball.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Wow, this is shocking..but only because we hadn't quite swallowed the whole Roberts deal yet to be thrown this curveball.

Yeap, and the hurricane took our minds off the Supreme Court and Rehnquist.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Yeap, and the hurricane took our minds off the Supreme Court and Rehnquist.

Exactly. I suspected it would happen this way, when folks least expected it. But damn.

I say Gonzales gets the nod. Or a woman, but I say Gonzales.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Wow.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Exactly. I suspected it would happen this way, when folks least expected it. But damn.

I say Gonzales gets the nod. Or a woman, but I say Gonzales.

I'd say Gonzales is a good bet. Bush probably thinks that the fight over Roberts will allow him to sneak Gonzo in (who has critics on right and left).

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

fuck fuck fuck. i don't want to politicize this thread, so i'll keep my opinions to myself, but let me just say that i am not happy about this one bit.

Without opening a can of worms but I just don't get your reaction. 1) Rehnquist was long rumored to be stepping down. 2) He will be replaced with another conservative which will not alter the balance of the SC. What in the world would you have thought otherwise?

[JPhillips]

No way the Right lets Bush go with Gonzales. They will be frothing at the mouth with the opportunity to genuinely change the course of US government over the next two decades. I expect a fairly open strong conservative, but probably to the right of Rehnquist ala Scalia on the theory that Roberts is more a moderate to replace a moderate and this new nominee should be a conservative to replace a conservative.

Its interesting how in a two month period Bush will define his presidency. I always thought he would be judged on 9-11, but now with these two nominees, the Katrina mess and the upcoming Iraqi election(and hopefully not civil war) these upcoming weeks will define his legacy for good or bad.

[Galaxy]

Why do I think this thread is going to go the way of the New Orleans thread?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Without opening a can of worms but I just don't get your reaction. 1) Rehnquist was long rumored to be stepping down. 2) He will be replaced with another conservative which will not alter the balance of the SC. What in the world would you have thought otherwise?

Except for the fact that Roberts is definetly more to the right than O'Conner.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

No way the Right lets Bush go with Gonzales. They will be frothing at the mouth with the opportunity to genuinely change the course of US government over the next two decades. I expect a fairly open strong conservative, but probably to the right of Rehnquist ala Scalia on the theory that Roberts is more a moderate to replace a moderate and this new nominee should be a conservative to replace a conservative.

Bush may argue that Roberts is more conservative that most people think (after Roberts has been confirmed, of course) and therefore Gonzales is the moderate.

[Buccaneer]

They will be frothing at the mouth with the opportunity to genuinely change the course of US government over the next two decades. I expect a fairly open strong conservative, but probably to the right of Rehnquist ala Scalia on the theory that Roberts is more a moderate to replace a moderate and this new nominee should be a conservative to replace a conservative.

Still, how does that change the course???

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Still, how does that change the course???

Two very strong conservatives would overturn Roe and probably affirmative action as O'Conner was on the other side on those issues... and probably more than a few more.

[JPhillips]

Roberts is far to the right of O'Conner, but they have done a marvelous job of selling him as a moderate. He's every bit as conservative as Scalia, but he smiles and seems to be a genuinely nice guy so he doesn't come off like Scalia.

Mark my word, the second nominee will be to the right of Roberts and Rehnquist. Rehnquist was a reliable conservative, but he wasn't a blow up the commerce clause guy and I think that is what we'll get in his replacement. I wouldn't be surprised if Rogers-Brown rears her head again. No way both of the nominees get through without it turning very ugly.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Two very strong conservatives would overturn Roe and probably affirmative action as O'Conner was on the other side on those issues... and probably more than a few more.

But Rehnquist was not. One can argue that O'Conner leaving might change things but Rehnquist would make no difference.

[Cringer]

I still don't get this whole mess about Roberts. I am FARRR from conservative (although somewhat libertarian in some areas) and I have no major problem with Roberts. Basing so much on cases he was part of as a lawyer just doesn't hold much water with me. Anyways, just babbling and don't want to thread jack.....

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Roberts is far to the right of O'Conner, but they have done a marvelous job of selling him as a moderate. He's every bit as conservative as Scalia, but he smiles and seems to be a genuinely nice guy so he doesn't come off like Scalia.

Mark my word, the second nominee will be to the right of Roberts and Rehnquist. Rehnquist was a reliable conservative, but he wasn't a blow up the commerce clause guy and I think that is what we'll get in his replacement. I wouldn't be surprised if Rogers-Brown rears her head again. No way both of the nominees get through without it turning very ugly.

Eh? Rehnquist was the main man in blowing up the commerce clause. It's the defining cases of his Chief Justiceship.

Roberts, the question is how much does his respect for the institution go. He's genuinely respectful of the instution and precedent, but does it go as far as big time cases like abortion.

[Buccaneer]

JPhillips: If one is positioned on the left as you are, isn't everyone "far to the right"?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But Rehnquist was not. One can argue that O'Conner leaving might change things but Rehnquist would make no difference.

That's what we mean. If Rehnquist is replaced by a conservative as well it may lead to a shift if Roberts is more conservative than we think he is. If Roberts is more conservative than we think he is, and Rehnquist is replaced by a moderate (like Gonzales), it may not shift things.

It depends on Roberts.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Without opening a can of worms but I just don't get your reaction. 1) Rehnquist was long rumored to be stepping down. 2) He will be replaced with another conservative which will not alter the balance of the SC. What in the world would you have thought otherwise?

it won't alter the balance. but it means that instead of an old-style conservative for a few more years we get 30+ years of some "new-age" conservative. And new-age versus old-style conservatism are two totally different things.

not that I wasn't expecting it to happen during this term, hell we all were. it's just not a situation i'm happy seeing.

clarification: i'm definately a liberal, but i don't "mind" old-style small-government and personal rights conservatives on my supreme court. what i do mind is new-age "extremist" conservatives who will try to legislate from the right-wing while on the bench. And for that matter I don't particularly enjoy left-wing liberals legislating from the bench either. At least when the left-wing legislates from the bench though they TEND to err on the side of being overly protective versus being discriminatory towards a minority.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

it won't alter the balance. but it means that instead of an old-style conservative for a few more years we get 30+ years of some "new-age" conservative. And new-age versus old-style conservatism are two totally different things.

not that I wasn't expecting it to happen during this term, hell we all were. it's just not a situation i'm happy seeing.

clarification: i'm definately a liberal, but i don't "mind" old-style small-government and personal rights conservatives on my supreme court. what i do mind is new-age "extremist" conservatives who will try to legislate from the right-wing while on the bench. And for that matter I don't particularly enjoy left-wing liberals legislating from the bench either. At least when the left-wing legislates from the bench though they TEND to err on the side of being overly protective versus being discriminatory towards a minority.

But hostile towards property rights.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But hostile towards property rights.

i have socialist leanings Bucc, so I'm not too keen on property rights anyways.

[Cringer]

I am socialist leaning on everyone else's property, but not my own. Stay away hosers.

[JPhillips]

Yes Bucc. I stand alone with everyone far to my right and my loneliness grates at me and makes me so sad I watch Ice Castles and Love Story every night to remember what beauty used to be. Its nice that you can add to the thread with such insightful commentary. I'm suprised you didn't mention that as a Bengals fan I couldn't possibly accept anyone outside of the Queen City.

ISiddiqui: I think there is a difference of degree. I truly think the Holy Grail of those running the far right(Norquist et al) is a complete dismantling of the commerce clause. Rehnquist, I don't think, would have ever gone that far. He was happy to poke around the edges, but I don't think he'd plunge the nation into the chaos that some on the far right would love to see if it means the return to nineteenth century style federal government.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

ISiddiqui: I think there is a difference of degree. I truly think the Holy Grail of those running the far right(Norquist et al) is a complete dismantling of the commerce clause. Rehnquist, I don't think, would have ever gone that far. He was happy to poke around the edges, but I don't think he'd plunge the nation into the chaos that some on the far right would love to see if it means the return to nineteenth century style federal government.

Perhaps, but not even an uber-conservative like Bush will try to appoint a judge like that, even though some on the ridiculous right may.

[JPhillips]

ISid: I hope you're right. I fear a Rogers-Brown type that would love to use their court position to reshape the country and cement their place in American history.

I'm certain the Rehnquist replacement will be uglier than Roberts and will probably deserve to be.

[ThunderingHERD]

Fuck.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Cringer

I still don't get this whole mess about Roberts. I am FARRR from conservative (although somewhat libertarian in some areas) and I have no major problem with Roberts. Basing so much on cases he was part of as a lawyer just doesn't hold much water with me. Anyways, just babbling and don't want to thread jack.....

I'm with you. He's not a legal reactionary and while it's hard to really predict these things, I don't see him joining the court and going nuts.

I say that Roberts was Bush's play to the right, because he's gonna be far more conservative than folks think from the outset, given the lack of a paper trail on him.

Meanwhile, I think Bush is gonna give his boy - Gonzales - some love by putting him on the court. It just makes sense, because it's not like he's trying to get reelected again and no matter what anyone says, they all realize that there isn't a mandate from the majority of the country to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Gonzales is as sure a bet as any or expect the GOP to hurt for a long, long time to come. And no, I'm no liberal either.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

ISid: I hope you're right. I fear a Rogers-Brown type that would love to use their court position to reshape the country and cement their place in American history.

I'm certain the Rehnquist replacement will be uglier than Roberts and will probably deserve to be.

Wasn't Rogers chastized by Gonzales when they were both on the court? Or am I thinking of someone else?

[clintl]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I wouldn't be surprised if Rogers-Brown rears her head again.

That better not happen. But if it does, I will be quite entertained if, during the confirmation process, someone brings up the fact that California Chief Justice Ronald George (a Republican who was appointed to the California Supreme Court by the same governor as Rogers-Brown) once basically called her a nut case while concurring with one of her opinions.

[Ryno]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Why do I think this thread is going to go the way of the New Orleans thread?

I got out of that one pretty quickly, but I can only imagine what was said.

Mr. Rehnquist just died and people are lining up to politicize it. Not stopping for even token sympathy. This kind of stuff really disgusts me.

I rarely post, but have lurked for years. I know no one will miss me, but I'm out of here. I'm not grandstanding or trying to garner attention. I just think that some of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[ISiddiqui]

Um... the guy was a sitting Supreme Court justice... his death is ultimately of great significance politically (though I did say "RIP" in my first post). There is NOTHING wrong with talking about the political consequences of that death.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Um... the guy was a sitting Supreme Court justice... his death is ultimately of great significance politically (though I did say "RIP" in my first post). There is NOTHING wrong with talking about the political consequences of that death.

It doesn't happen all that often I don't believe, so it's probably worth noting that I'm in total agreement with your post.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It doesn't happen all that often I don't believe, so it's probably worth noting that I'm in total agreement with your post.

i neglected to say RIP, which I shouldn't have. but i think that pretty much goes without saying, ya know? And honestly, WTF good does it do to say RIP? Unless he has family/friends reading this board I mean.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

No way the Right lets Bush go with Gonzales. They will be frothing at the mouth with the opportunity to genuinely change the course of US government over the next two decades. I expect a fairly open strong conservative, but probably to the right of Rehnquist ala Scalia on the theory that Roberts is more a moderate to replace a moderate and this new nominee should be a conservative to replace a conservative.

Its interesting how in a two month period Bush will define his presidency. I always thought he would be judged on 9-11, but now with these two nominees, the Katrina mess and the upcoming Iraqi election(and hopefully not civil war) these upcoming weeks will define his legacy for good or bad.

So true. Meaning: No 4 year vacation for him.

[ISiddiqui]

Didn't you know, Ryno was his son .

Anyway, it'd be very different if say it was O'Connor. She's already stepped down, so her death wouldn't have any political consequences. So in that situation, saying condolences and then, maybe a day later, start talking about her politics would work.

Then again, I'm not that much for offering respect for the dead on an internet forum, because as DaddyTorgo has said, I'm not really sure what good it really does. Because 5 years later, you can rip them to your heart's content and no one will say anything. Though I admit I do, personally, save my critcism for people who have died.