PDA

View Full Version : CNN: Rumor Rehnquist retires



Reds Fanatic
07-08-2005, 03:51 PM
One of the CNN reporters is reporting the Judge Rehnquist is also retiring from the Supreme court. Apparently they are waiting to officially announce it tonight after the President returns home from the G8 summit.

registerthis
07-08-2005, 03:54 PM
Well, here we go.

Two vacancies to fill.

This will get ugly.

Jaycint
07-08-2005, 03:56 PM
I think I'll make this my first and last official post on this thread and try my best to not open it out of curiosity. ;)

KronoRed
07-08-2005, 03:56 PM
Well, here we go.

Two vacancies to fill.

This will get ugly.

One ultra liberal and one ultra conservative?

Please?

Yeah I know..never gonna happen.

savafan
07-08-2005, 03:56 PM
So Novack was off on his timing. http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37550

Word is an official announcement will come some time after 4:50 PM EDT

Reds4Life
07-08-2005, 03:58 PM
I'd like my crow with a side of mayo please. This is amazing, 2 vacancies at once.

Edit: I'm not seeing any official story on this, either on the net or on TV. So it remains to be seen.

jmcclain19
07-08-2005, 04:02 PM
It's a sad day if this is indeed true

WVRed
07-08-2005, 04:04 PM
The apocalypse is near.

Redsfaithful
07-08-2005, 04:05 PM
Well the chickens are certainly coming home to roost. Going to be an interesting couple of months.

GoReds
07-08-2005, 04:05 PM
What side of the government taking your land issue was Rehnquist on?

RedsBaron
07-08-2005, 04:05 PM
I'd like my crow with a side of mayo please. This is amazing, 2 vacancies at once.


This is the first time there were two vacancies at the same time since Rehnquist and Powell were appointed in 1971.

RedsBaron
07-08-2005, 04:06 PM
What side of the government taking your land issue was Rehnquist on?
Against ( I think).

jmcclain19
07-08-2005, 04:06 PM
The amount of bs that will spew from both sides over one nomination is almost more than I could possibly ever want to digest. Now that we are looking at two, possibly three nominations in the upcoming months - ugh. I'm already burned out of hearing political talking heads - this is going to be just too much.

jmcclain19
07-08-2005, 04:10 PM
John Dean, former White House Counsel, wrote his about Rehnquist, and his final state of the federal judiciary letter that he submitted this Jan.

Hopefully in the coming days, a the look back at Rehnquist will include lots of the good to balance the not so good in his past.


On January 1, the ailing Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist issued his fourth annual report on the Federal Judiciary. The report is the Chief Justice's equivalent of the President's State of the Union message. This year, in his report, the Chief Justice strongly lectured those members of Congress who have recently mounted increasing "criticism of judges for engaging in what is often referred to as 'judicial activism.'"

This criticism has been accompanied by threats of action -- which may be what troubles Rehnquist. Members of Congress -- including prominent firebrands on the right -- have threatened, recently, to punish the judges they deem "activist." They have discussed seeking to impeach judges based on their opinions (rather than personal conduct). And they have also discussed curtailing federal jurisdiction in a number of ways -- although the extent of Congress's power to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction remains dangerously uncertain.

(Of course, charges of judicial activism can easily be made by the left, too, with the Rehnquist Court a prime offender. But with the Republicans holding political power, the real threat is that Congress will punish judges on the left, or curtail jurisdiction in areas in which it found decisions to be too left-leaning.)

Plainly, Rehnquist feels Congress's threats to punish activist judges are inappropriate. And this is not the first time he has said so. The fact that he has once again raised this issue -- and done so quite pointedly -- suggests that he feels it is a serious problem, and that he may know more than he has said.

David Savage of the Los Angeles Times has adeptly reported on the political context -- and subtext -- of the Rehnquist report and statement. Savage notes, for instance, that Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas "has repeatedly threatened to impeach liberal-leaning judges for their rulings, such as the ban on school-sponsored prayers." Accusing judges of being "drunk on their own power," DeLay wants to know, "Why shouldn't the people have a right to impeach these out-of-control judges?" As Savage reports, DeLay has even called "for Congress to enact legislation that would remove certain issues, such as the Pledge of Allegiance, from the jurisdiction of the federal courts." And DeLay is hardly alone: He may have the support of almost the entire Republican membership.

In analyzing the Chief Justice's report and statement, I've noticed that they provide a nice example of what distinguishes radical from reactionary conservatives. Rehnquist, they indicate, is a reactionary conservative. By contrast, the members of Congress who are calling for drastic solutions such as impeachment or jurisdiction-stripping, are radical conservatives. And, far from being natural bedfellows, reactionary and radical conservatives can end up directly at odds -- which is the case here.

Rehnquist Draws on History to Argue Against Criticizing Judges For Their Judicial Acts

Rehnquist draws on constitutional text and history to make his argument that Congress ought not to take federal judges to task for the opinions they issue.

"Criticism of judges has dramatically increased in recent years," the Chief observes, noting that it "is as old as our republic, an outgrowth to some extent of the tensions built into our three-branch system of government." Yet, Rehnquist says, federal judges have been given "life tenure" under the Constitution "not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law." This independence is vital, he explains, to insulate judges "from the public pressures that may affect elected officials."

Rehnquist reminds Congressional troublemakers of a famous, failed political impeachment: The 1805 impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase by Jeffersonian Republicans. Though the Jeffersonian Republicans overwhelmingly controlled the Senate, the party nevertheless broke rank to prevent a radical breakdown of the constitutional system. The House impeached Chase; the Senate refused to convict.

Rehnquist acknowledges that Chase was no "model judge." But he also suggests that the precedent that Chase's acquittal set ought to be respected, for it represents "a judgment that impeachment should not be used to remove a judge for conduct in the exercise of his judicial duties."

After all, he points out, the federal judiciary is not immune to public reaction: If there is a "sustained and widespread" negative reaction to decisions of the judiciary, it "can be a factor in the electoral process and lead to the appointment of judges who might decide cases differently." For instance, FDR - though he famously lost his bid to "pack" the Court with six additional, sympathetic Justices -- ultimately appointed seven Associate Justices and one Chief Justice, creating a Court to his liking.

Rehnquist concludes that "our Constitution has struck a balance between judicial independence and accountability." On the one hand, he explains, it gives "individual judges secure tenure" during good behavior. On the other hand, it makes "the federal Judiciary subject ultimately to the popular will because judges are appointed and confirmed by elected officials."

Ours is not a perfect system, he admits, since it depends on unpredictable vacancies to change the courts. But he points out that, nonetheless, this system has served our democracy well for over two hundred years.

The Assault on Federal Judges: Why Rehnquist Feels the Need to Lecture.

William Rehnquist is no Chicken Little. He would not be issuing so severe a warning, if he did not judge this to be a potentially dangerous situation -- and if he did not fear Congress might truly do the federal judiciary harm.

Rehnquist knows how conservative Republicans can play hardball and it is not always pretty. As an Assistant Attorney General he was deeply involved in the partially successful efforts to "unpack" the Court by removing sitting justices through impeachment (or merely the threat of it). In the end, Nixon's Justice Department succeeded in forcing Justice Abe Fortas off the high bench (with threats), but it failed to force Justice William Douglas off (who didn't take the bluff).

Rehnquist has excellent political antennae. No doubt he recognizes that, with Republicans controlling Congress, there is a genuine risk of a repeat -- or a risk that they may actually have the votes to tamper with federal court jurisdiction.

The House could impeach a ham sandwich, as the expression goes. If an impeachment is purely politically motivated, however, it is highly unlikely to succeed in the Senate. An impeachment, then, would lead to grandstanding, and to a colossal waste of time, with no practical result. Fooling with federal jurisdiction is uncharted territory. It seems that Chief Justice Rehnquist wants to stop all this nonsense before it goes any further.

Not All Right Wingers Are Birds Of A Feather

Why is Rehnquist taking this stand, given that he, too, is conservative, and he, too, opposes the very rulings that have angered members of Congress?

The answer, it seems, is that Rehnquist is a "reactionary" conservatives, and the relevant members of Congress -- such as DeLay -- are "radical" conservatives. (I discussed conservatism generally in an earlier column on conservatism, but did not focus on this specific distinction -- which the Rehnquist/DeLay split nicely illustrates.)

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy defines a political radical as "someone who demands substantial or extreme changes in the existing system." Similarly, The American Heritage Dictionary defines a political radical as "favoring or effecting extreme or revolutionary changes." Certainly, DeLay -- with his talk of impeachment and jurisdiction-stripping -- fits the bill.

In contrast, The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy defines a reactionary as "an extremely conservative person or position that not only resists change but seeks to return to the 'good old days' of an earlier social order." And The American Heritage Dictionary defines a reactionary as "an opponent of progress or liberalism."

These definitions of a reactionary perfectly fit Chief Justice Rehnquist. His thinking -- at a minimum, his judicial and political thinking -- is opposed to all that is liberal.

Moreover, Rehnquist's judicial rulings often look to the "good old days" -- as does his most recent annual statement. In the good old days, his statement reminds us, while the House impeached Justice Chase for political reasons, he was not convicted. In the good old days, when FDR tried to pack the Court to change its politics -- a radical option -- he lost.

On the other hand, DeLay and his court-criticizing cronies epitomize radicalism. They want to proceed with the extreme being their norm. It is difficult to find much that is conservative about those who demand such radical actions.

Rehnquist Was Right to Admonish Radical Conservatives to Take Care

What's wrong with a little radicalism, one might ask, if you feel strongly about the correctness of your position? After 9/11, and this nation's (and the world's) exposure to radical Islamic groups, that question is not worth addressing.

Let us hope the radical pique of DeLay, and others who think similarly, has not become Washington's new radical chic. Hopefully, they have listened to what the Chief Justice had to say, carefully considered it, and decided to halt their attacks on the federal judiciary.

pedro
07-08-2005, 04:11 PM
I'm just glad Bush is in his second term and has used the religious right for all he can already. Hopefully they won't have as much say in the nominations as they might have 3 year ago. I'm scared of the fact that there are cries that Gonzalez woudl be TOO LIBERAL for the court.

This IMO is much more important than who is President.

Reds4Life
07-08-2005, 04:15 PM
Scalia will probably be the nominee for Chief Justice. It's going to be funny watching the Democratic Senators paint him as unqualified, especially when he was confirmed 98-0 before.

This opens the door though, Bush will now probably appoint a moderate to replace O'Conner (Gonzales) and a more conservative Justice to replace Rehnquist. In the end, I doubt the balance of the court will change all that much.

Edit: I changed the title of this thread until we get confirmation Justice Rehnquist has actually retired.

rdiersin
07-08-2005, 04:18 PM
I'm just glad Bush is in his second term and has used the religious right for all he can already. Hopefully they won't have as much say in the nominations as they might have 3 year ago. I'm scared of the fact that there are cries that Gonzalez woudl be TOO LIBERAL for the court.

This IMO is much more important than who is President.

There was an article in the NY times yesterday I think that alluded to this. It was about how the Republicans are trying to curb the religous right about a nomination of Gonzalez, in particular. I couldn't find articles from yesterdays paper on the website though, otherwise I would have posted it.

WVRed
07-08-2005, 04:23 PM
Rumor has it that John Paul Stevens is also considering retirement. If thats true, all the worst parts of the Bible will come true.

Rojo
07-08-2005, 04:28 PM
Even though this gives Bush another pick, I'm glad to see the racist go.

Reds4Life
07-08-2005, 04:29 PM
Even though this gives Bush another pick, I'm glad to see the racist go.

Warning #1. These political threads are getting way out of control, and the name calling is going to stop.

Reds4Life
07-08-2005, 04:30 PM
Rumor has it that John Paul Stevens is also considering retirement. If thats true, all the worst parts of the Bible will come true.

He was doing interviews for his 2006-2007 law clerks already, so I doubt he'll retire.

Redsfaithful
07-08-2005, 04:32 PM
Warning #1. These political threads are getting way out of control, and the name calling is going to stop.

We can't call public figures racist, if we feel that they're racist now? Where is that rule?

savafan
07-08-2005, 04:39 PM
We can't call public figures racist, if we feel that they're racist now? Where is that rule?

See below:


4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Reds4Life
07-08-2005, 04:39 PM
We can't call public figures racist, if we feel that they're racist now? Where is that rule?


Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines.

This is an on going problem in political threads and I'm tired of putting up with it. It's the same group of posters pulling this stuff over and over, it stops now. If you can't participate in political threads without calling people names, baiting and all the other childish garbage, you are invited to no longer participate. If you continue to do so, you can expect to be warned and appropriate suspensions to be handed out.

savafan
07-08-2005, 04:41 PM
This is an on going problem in political threads and I'm tired of putting up with it. It's the same group of posters pulling this stuff over and over, it stops now. If you can't participate in political threads without calling people names, baiting and all the other childish garbage, you are invited to no longer participate. If you continue to do so, you can expect to be warned and appropriate suspensions to be handed out.

I like this plan better than simply closing the threads.

Rojo
07-08-2005, 04:46 PM
How else do I say it?

pedro
07-08-2005, 04:46 PM
Rojo,

Could you please post some evidence to back up your claims. I'm not disagreeing with you but maybe if you could expand on your thesis we could have a rational discussion on the facts as you see them without the mods jumping the gun.

I'd like to hear what you have to say.

pedro
07-08-2005, 04:47 PM
How else do I say it?

non liker of people of color?

Reds4Life
07-08-2005, 04:51 PM
I guess we'll see if the rumor is true or not, President has landed at Andrews and is headed back to the White House.

Rojo
07-08-2005, 04:55 PM
Wrote memorandum supporting Plessy v. Ferguson.

In Plessy the Court endorsed state supported segregation and established that Jim Crow “separate but equal” principle was constitutional. Chief Justice Rehnquist served as a clerk to Justice Robert Jackson. The memo “A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases” advised Justice Jackson to affirm Plessy in future segregation cases, including Brown v. Board of Education. The memo stated “I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by my ‘liberal’ colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.” Plessy was later overturned in Brown v. Board of Education. While under oath during his confirmation hearings, Justice Rehnquist denied that the memo reflected his beliefs at the time. One writer wrote that for Justice Rehnquist “it depends on what the definition of ‘I’ is.” Justice Rehnquist went so far as to attribute his statements to former Supreme Court Justice Jackson. Justice Jackson was deceased at the time and therefore unable to defend himself against these attacks. Elsie Douglas, Justice Jackson’s former secretary, defended her boss sharply and criticized Justice Rehnquist for smearing the name and reputation of Justice Jackson. Justice Rehnquist has been accused of perjury by several scholars for stating to Congress that the memo did not represent his beliefs.

Justice Rehnquist wrote a proposed constitutional amendment designed to limit the enforcement of Brown v. Board of education

Justice Rehnquist, then President Nixon’s Assistant Attorney General, wrote the memos in March 1970. According to Justice Rehnquist, the amendment was designed to permit northern schools to preserve de facto segregation through “neighborhood schools.” Justice Rehnquist believed the amendment would allow gerrymandering of schools districts even if the neighborhood plan was “adopted by the local school board at least partly because they would make some schools largely white, and others largely black.”

Wrote memorandum endorsing Texas’ “Whites Only” Primaries

Terry v. Adams was case about the rights of blacks to vote in a “private” Texas primary.

Justice Rehnquist while clerking for Justice Jackson wrote in a memo “I take a dim view of this pathological search for discrimination. . . and as a result I now have a mental block against the case.” In a second memo he wrote: “The Constitution does not prevent the majority from banding together, nor does it attaint success in the effort. It is about time the Court faced the fact that the white people of the south don’t like the colored people: the constitution restrains them from effecting thru (sic) state action but it most assuredly did not appoint the Court as a sociological watchdog to rear up every time private discrimination raises its admittedly ugly head.”

Fought passage of ordinance permitting blacks to enter stores and restaurants.

In 1964, Justice Rehnquist appeared before the Phoenix City Council voicing opposition to the city’s proposed public accommodations ordinance. Additionally, he wrote a letter criticizing the council’s decision to the Arizona Republic after the ordinance was passed.

Harassed minority voters in Arizona.

Several witnesses have stated under oath that Justice Rehnquist harassed minority voters during the early 1960's. Justice Rehnquist denies he harassed minority voters. James Brosnahan, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Phoenix from 1961 to 1963, said in a statement delivered to Congress that on election day in 1962, he and several assistant U.S. attorneys were assigned the task of receiving complaints alleging illegal interference with the voting process. The group received several complaints from precincts in South Phoenix. The precincts were predominately black and Hispanic. The complaints involved Justice Rehnquist. Broshnahan visited one of the precincts. When he arrived he saw Justice Rehnquist. There were reports that poll watchers had to physically push Rehnquist out of polling places to stop him from interfering with the voting rights of the minority citizens.

Owned property containing restrictive covenants barring the sale of his property to nonwhites and Jews.

Justice Rehnquist, a sophisticated lawyer, professed ignorance of the restrictive covenant.

Voted to grant Bob Jones University tax exempt status

In 1970, the IRS ruled that Bob Jones could not enjoy tax exempt status because of its racially discriminatory policies. Bob Jones began admitting blacks on a limited basis. Blacks could enroll at the school but only if they were married to other blacks or promised not to date or marry outside the black race. Bob Jones University applied for tax exempt status and was denied. Bob Jones University sued to restore its tax exemption and won. The case then went before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court in a 8-1 decision held that the university’s policy violated deeply accepted views of elementary justice and that it could not enjoy tax exempt status. The Supreme Court, Chief Justice Burger, held that nonprofit private schools that prescribe and enforce racially discriminatory admission standards on the basis of religious doctrine do not qualify as tax‑exempt organizations under the Internal Revenue Code, nor are contributions to such schools deductible as charitable contributions. The sole dissenter was, you guessed it, Justice William Rehnquist.

pedro
07-08-2005, 05:00 PM
That doesn't paint a very pretty picture. I don't think Rojo was out of line at all.

Redsfaithful
07-08-2005, 05:00 PM
The word "racist" is edgy now? Oh, pickles.


“I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position for which I have been excoriated by ‘liberal’ colleagues, but I think Plessy v Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.”


“it’s about time the Supreme Court faced the fact that the white people of the South don’t like the colored people.”


In 1980, Rehnquist made his thoughts on the case of United States v Sioux Nations known to the press: “We conquered them, why should we pay for their land?”

Yeah, what an unfair thing to bring up.

I don't know if the political threads have been getting out of hand, (I haven't seen it myself) but this is ridiculous. Whether you agree with it or not, I sincerely doubt you're going to be able to have a conversation on Rehnquist without race entering the conversation.

Reds4Life
07-08-2005, 05:08 PM
Throwing out "He's a racist", with no explanation, no fact, no anything, is name-calling and baiting. Political threads ARE getting out of hand again, including one that had to be closed because the first 10 posts on it were blatant baiting and mocking so called forum "conservatives" to reply.

This is going to stop, one way or another, and it’s been coming for a long time. Either the tone of these threads change, or they might cease to exist on this forum.

Redsfaithful
07-08-2005, 05:32 PM
He probably figured most people knew that Rehquist was a racist. It's fairly common knowledge.

I just don't think calling a racist a racist is a bad thing. Or baiting. But you're the mod.


This is going to stop, one way or another, and it’s been coming for a long time. Either the tone of these threads change, or they might cease to exist on this forum.

So close 'em down. The constant threats get old. I think things have gotten way better personally. I'm surprised to see all the old "political threads are the evil" comments being brought up again.

savafan
07-08-2005, 05:33 PM
Some are still saying an announcement won't come until Monday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/08/AR2005070801429_pf.html

By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Friday, July 8, 2005; 5:04 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court pulsed with retirement speculation Friday, with rumors focusing first on the ailing chief justice, then the oldest member, and even the tiniest justice.

The buzz came one week after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's decision to step down, giving the court its first vacancy in more than a decade.

The 80-year-old chief, William H. Rehnquist, has thyroid cancer. And though he's been working full-time at the court, he's noticeably frailer and it's widely thought he will step down.

Many court observers believed that because of O'Connor's announcement he would wait until this week to make the announcement. Speculation intensified as the week wore on.

TV news crews and an Associated Press photographer waited in pelting rain for three hours Friday morning for Rehnquist to emerge from his suburban Virginia town house. He eventually did, but said nothing, smiling as he ambled by, gripping an ornate cane.

The press room at the Supreme Court was filled, a rarity during a time when the court is not in session. And the rumors flew.

E-mails to reporters from various groups speculated when Rehnquist would make an announcement, and also speculated about other possibilities.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who is 85 and healthy, may be going, the speculation went. Stevens is the court's liberal leader and would seem an unlikely prospect with a Republican in the White House and GOP-controlled Senate.

He also has already started hiring law clerks to work for him in 2006-07. That could be a sign that he's sticking around for a while. Or that he's sneaky and wants to keep reporters off his trail.

Next came hints that the real retirement would be that of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the petite opera lover President Clinton put on the bench in 1993.

Ginsburg and O'Connor are the only two female justices in history. Ginsburg, who stands about 5-feet tall, had issued a statement last week lamenting the retirement of her sister justice, saying she "will sorely miss her support and guidance."

Supreme Court officials had no news for reporters about Rehnquist, Stevens or Ginsburg.

But that didn't keep the reporters from asking. Every move in and out of the public information office was tracked. Routine paperwork deliveries held prospects of being a retirement letter for the president.

On the Drudge Report, the headline was "Media on standby after growing reports Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist is handing in his resignation ... DEVELOPING."

"Bizarre," said David Garrow, a Supreme Court historian at Emory University. "Feeding frenzy is overused, but it certainly fits."

When no Rehnquist announcement had come by late morning, new speculation started that the White House had asked the chief justice to delay making public a decision until Bush returned from an overseas trip.

At a Federalist Society luncheon across town, the future of the court was the major subject. Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson was introduced to a crowded ballroom as someone on the short list of potential nominees. "That list that you were talking about is a lot longer than you think," Olson quipped.

Meantime, the chief justice continued his public silence. Rehnquist, a widower who lives alone, didn't pause Friday when asked if the retirement speculation was true.

"I would bet Rehnquist is thinking it would be demeaning to the office of chief justice to put out a press release saying `I'm not retiring this summer,'" Garrow said.

___

Mutaman
07-08-2005, 05:43 PM
Throwing out "He's a racist", with no explanation, no fact, no anything, is name-calling and baiting. Political threads ARE getting out of hand again, including one that had to be closed because the first 10 posts on it were blatant baiting and mocking so called forum "conservatives" to reply.

This is going to stop, one way or another, and it’s been coming for a long time. Either the tone of these threads change, or they might cease to exist on this forum.


With all due respect, lighten up. Yes it would be nice if the poster would supply facts to back up his opinion, but I don't see anybody else getting upset by the characterizations of Rehnquist. The rules clearly prohibit personal attacks on fellow Redzoaners, they don't prohibit attacks on public figures. At least wait until somebody complains before making all kinds of threats.

Yes the people who run this board have the right to run it the way they see fit. Yes the job of a moderator is a thankless one and we appreciate your service. No, nobody who posts here wants to see this board turned into a namecalling, juvenile, nasty place. But hear us out, please. I think this board is a long way from that, that everybody who posts here is reasonable and can work things out if given half the chance, and there's nothing wrong with venting your spleen every once in a while. (I happen to like Howard Dean. But if someone wants to call him a "lunatic" or a "moron" , I'm not going to ask the moderator to shut the board down.

You're right, more facts and less labels would be great, but with all due respect, lighten up.

That being said, I personally think Rehnquist was a terrible judge, I never read one opinion of his that was well written or even came close to convincing me that his argument was right, so good riddence, don't let the door hit you on the way out. You should have resigned when the guy who appointed you resigned in disgrace. And you can keep that cute Gilbert and Sullivan outfit that you prade around in.
And I predict that George Bush will replace him with somebody worse.

Rojo
07-08-2005, 06:39 PM
FWIW, I did assume that most people knew his views on Plessy. It came up during his nomination hearings for the court and elevation to chief justice.

And I just don't see the problem. Political discussions are supposed to be heated. There are many amen-chorus forums I can go to for headnods and attaboys. Boring!

dsmith421
07-08-2005, 08:46 PM
A guy I knew in college once claimed that in all his years on the court Rehnquist had never voted in favor of the rights of a criminal defendant. Can someone confirm/deny that?

Mutaman
07-08-2005, 08:54 PM
Hey Rojo, your post number 30 was outstanding. I limit my use of the word "racist" because its used too much (maybe with good reason), but you certainly laid down the facts. Obviously a lot of work went into that post, and I appreciate it. I knew Renquist was a bad dude, but I didn't know he was that bad. So much for "baiting". Thanks.

Falls City Beer
07-08-2005, 08:59 PM
Throwing out "He's a racist", with no explanation, no fact, no anything, is name-calling and baiting. Political threads ARE getting out of hand again, including one that had to be closed because the first 10 posts on it were blatant baiting and mocking so called forum "conservatives" to reply.

This is going to stop, one way or another, and it’s been coming for a long time. Either the tone of these threads change, or they might cease to exist on this forum.

Honestly, from where I sit, the "liberals" on this board are the ones able to back up their claims with things other than Scripture.

Michael Allred
07-08-2005, 11:51 PM
Honestly, from where I sit, the "liberals" on this board are the ones able to back up their claims with things other than Scripture.

As a Democrat, I'm not sure I agree. Perhaps *some* back their opinions up with religion (and therefore, not true facts) but I think on the whole, our conservative friends can back up their ideas just as well as the rest of us.

I guess I'm feeling pretty moderate tonight......

Falls City Beer
07-09-2005, 12:08 AM
As a Democrat, I'm not sure I agree. Perhaps *some* back their opinions up with religion (and therefore, not true facts) but I think on the whole, our conservative friends can back up their ideas just as well as the rest of us.

I guess I'm feeling pretty moderate tonight......

Well, I was responding to a post blaming Rojo for saying "racist" without "backing it up" (which he promptly did, with clear and unclouded directness). The bigger crime here is not offending sensibilities with words like "racist" or "fascist," but not calling it like it is.

savafan
07-09-2005, 12:25 AM
Hey Rojo, your post number 30 was outstanding. I limit my use of the word "racist" because its used too much (maybe with good reason), but you certainly laid down the facts. Obviously a lot of work went into that post, and I appreciate it. I knew Renquist was a bad dude, but I didn't know he was that bad. So much for "baiting". Thanks.

I'll concur. It was an excellent post. I had no idea of any of those facts.