Comments | dranor: Marching back into the dark ages with horns blaring.

dranor

Marching back into the dark ages with horns blaring.

Sep 03, 2005 22:39

Chief Justice Rehnquist died today, that makes two judges the Idiot in Chief gets to nominate. This is very unfortunate time for the court to shift. At least Congress won't be able to screw things up too horribly in the next year as they'll be too busy throttling each other and crucifying the next nominee ( Read more... )

Comments 7

raayat September 4 2005, 08:50:00 UTC

He believed the only rights the Constitution protects are those the document names specifically, and justices should consider the framers' original intent when making rulings.

So in other words, he did not accept the existence of the 10th Amendment, and still believed blacks were only worth three-fifths of a white?

By the by, given that he dissented in Lawrence v. Texas, that anyone would characterize Rehnquist as supporting homosexual rights beggars belief.

The ensuing fracas will be quite worth watching...

A fuck-up raayat September 4 2005, 08:51:38 UTC

That would be the 9th Amendment I was attempting to reference.

anonymous September 12 2005, 18:40:32 UTC

He was also a big fat anti-Semite, although admittedly, he didn't have too many opportunities to demonstrate this in the cases before him. --KRIS

anonymous September 12 2005, 18:43:30 UTC

Might cause you to rethink your position on your loss:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20050905/cm_huffpost/006844

--KRIS

dranor September 12 2005, 22:24:30 UTC

The quoted words are CNN's, not mine, and intended to facilitate discussion. I do not run the Austin Rehnquist fan club chapter!

I'm more concerned over Bush's increased say in the composition of the court than the late Justice's outlook. I'm interested to see if the next court nominee will be a compromise or very skewed to the conservative side. I'm afraid Bush will take his chance to put any societal progress towards gay rights to a screeching halt. I'm also concerned that the court may allow our rights and freedoms to be curtailed for the sake of "security". Remember, vote Fear in 2008.

dranor September 13 2005, 22:19:57 UTC

From what I know of both the former and currently potential Chief Justice, you may be less likely to get the above result with Roberts than you were with Rehnquist. Now, not necessarily DRAMATICALLY less likely. Certainly not less likely in the sense that Roberts will be a raging liberal where Rehnquist was conservative, and probably not a whole lot less likely in the sense that Roberts will vote much differently. But I think Roberts will be able to bring a new sensibility to the Court. First, the few writings of his that I have read have been remarkably clear. Second, Roberts' opinions and writings state every so often that he certainly sees the opposite and why, almost to the point that you are led to believe that he actually PERSONALLY agrees with the opposite side. This is good for two reasons: firstly, I like to know a Justice is actually listening, not just deciding with his politics from the getgo, and secondly, it's time for something or someone to put checks and balances back in the spotlight and keep it there. When ( ... )

I meant to add... dranor September 13 2005, 22:27:12 UTC

That it ironically got started with the Court refusing to correct one of its own mistakes, as opposed to correcting a mistake of a legislative body. My jump from legislating from the bench to Plessy is actually confusing in the above. My point is that whenever judges have some reason for not plainly stating what the law is, and they allow that reason (they're embarrassed for the previous Court, they think the law is just bad or politically inexpedient) to interfere with their decision-making, they are not doing their job. I'm starting to have some faith that maybe Roberts could be different.