William Rehnquist R.I.P.
Of course by now all have heard of the loss of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The Chief Justice lost his battle with thyroid cancer last night. American Princess has a wonderful piece on him and on the future. It is sad to see the loss of anyone, but Rehnquist was the leader of an attempt to maintain and restore individual rights for the average US citizen. He led the fight against the collectivists (Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens) who sought to rewrite the Constitution as if they were there Founding Fathers. Some would say he has been not so successful, being saddled with several Justices who, even with the promise of going right in some instances, swung far left. His attempts to retain the intent of the Founders were strong, but often thwarted by the likes of Kennedy and O'Connor, who notoriously vacillated between what was right and what was popular. His only true allies, Scalia and Thomas, were as equally dedicated to his beliefs, and we can but pray that the President nominates a like-minded individual to succeed him.
I honestly wish Rehnquist had retired after 2001, when there was a good chance a constructionist could be chosen to replace him and when Bush still had another election to run and would have been more pressured to pick a like-minded replacement. Sadly, he chose to fight until the end, possibly believing that another Kennedy or O'Connor might take his place; something I'm sure he dreaded. He might have seen in this President that he is not a serious conservative and therefore not someone who could be guaranteed to appoint the right person. Whatever his reasons, now we are left with the aftermath.
The only hope for we citizens is that more justices like Rehnquist get appointed. The idea of a "Living Constitution" so sickens me as to make the thought of more leftists on the bench intolerable. It's almost as if the whole idea of how our government was meant to function has been forgotten. The Court over the years has become a social arbiter, something no one ever expected it to be. Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas fought to return the Court to its proper role, a role even still stretched beyond its original intent. I pray that battle will continue and succeed.
I would ask those on the left, the socialists seeking to remake America in their own image, would you want conservatives deciding social issues for you, like what your "social rights" are, for example? Or even your individual rights? I have a sneaking suspicion the answer would be no. The focus of the Left is not to educate the rest of America to what the real function of the Supreme Court is, as they see it. Their focus is to use that body to pursue an agenda they have not been able to sell to the American people.
Surprisingly, even the Leftist Four on the Court are now turning against their own and voting on issues the Court has no business reviewing, like medical marijuana. Whether such things as abortion or drugs or saying Under God in the Pledge are right or wrong (and we all have our opinions on them don't we?), I fail to understand how even the most die hard leftist could think that nine old people forming a Judicial Oligarchy have the right to decide those issues for the other 280 million of us.
Rehnquist was a good man and a fighter for the individual American. Let us always remember him for that and let us pray his loss in body is not lost in spirit on our Supreme Court.
Of course by now all have heard of the loss of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The Chief Justice lost his battle with thyroid cancer last night. American Princess has a wonderful piece on him and on the future. It is sad to see the loss of anyone, but Rehnquist was the leader of an attempt to maintain and restore individual rights for the average US citizen. He led the fight against the collectivists (Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens) who sought to rewrite the Constitution as if they were there Founding Fathers. Some would say he has been not so successful, being saddled with several Justices who, even with the promise of going right in some instances, swung far left. His attempts to retain the intent of the Founders were strong, but often thwarted by the likes of Kennedy and O'Connor, who notoriously vacillated between what was right and what was popular. His only true allies, Scalia and Thomas, were as equally dedicated to his beliefs, and we can but pray that the President nominates a like-minded individual to succeed him.
I honestly wish Rehnquist had retired after 2001, when there was a good chance a constructionist could be chosen to replace him and when Bush still had another election to run and would have been more pressured to pick a like-minded replacement. Sadly, he chose to fight until the end, possibly believing that another Kennedy or O'Connor might take his place; something I'm sure he dreaded. He might have seen in this President that he is not a serious conservative and therefore not someone who could be guaranteed to appoint the right person. Whatever his reasons, now we are left with the aftermath.
The only hope for we citizens is that more justices like Rehnquist get appointed. The idea of a "Living Constitution" so sickens me as to make the thought of more leftists on the bench intolerable. It's almost as if the whole idea of how our government was meant to function has been forgotten. The Court over the years has become a social arbiter, something no one ever expected it to be. Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas fought to return the Court to its proper role, a role even still stretched beyond its original intent. I pray that battle will continue and succeed.
I would ask those on the left, the socialists seeking to remake America in their own image, would you want conservatives deciding social issues for you, like what your "social rights" are, for example? Or even your individual rights? I have a sneaking suspicion the answer would be no. The focus of the Left is not to educate the rest of America to what the real function of the Supreme Court is, as they see it. Their focus is to use that body to pursue an agenda they have not been able to sell to the American people.
Surprisingly, even the Leftist Four on the Court are now turning against their own and voting on issues the Court has no business reviewing, like medical marijuana. Whether such things as abortion or drugs or saying Under God in the Pledge are right or wrong (and we all have our opinions on them don't we?), I fail to understand how even the most die hard leftist could think that nine old people forming a Judicial Oligarchy have the right to decide those issues for the other 280 million of us.
Rehnquist was a good man and a fighter for the individual American. Let us always remember him for that and let us pray his loss in body is not lost in spirit on our Supreme Court.
posted by Rob Beck | 7:23 AM
2 Comments:
No one should assume that because a Republican sits in the White House, and hold majorities in the House & Senate, that a defender of individual rights is a given. 7 of the last 9 appointees were made with a Republican president in office, and it certainly didn't help in the case of Kelo V. New London.
Rehnquist & O'Conner were two who were on the correct side of Kelo, in my opinion. With their replacements, the best we can hope for is merely holding the line, and of course there is the justified fear of further slipping away from the ideal. The chance to advance the cause won't come until the next retirement or passing, and who knows how long that will be in the offing.
BTW- I love being able to say "7 of 9". Wonderful memories...
This is true, and something I see noted often. Mark Levin's book, "Men in Black" gives a good case study of the court's makeup and history that shows this trend, and the annoying trend that judges tend to be human and thus usually flawed.
I did see where Howard Dean in one of his speeches said Kelo was the brainchild and fault of the conservatives on the Court (and of course Bush). I wonder if he actually looked to see who voted in favor of it.
Roberts, now nominated for Chief Justice is a big unknown, the worst kind of nominee. You have no idea how he's going to go. They just keep saying "He sticks to precedent". I'd prefer a judge who stuck to the Constitution over "precedent". Precedent is a fine legal tradition, but heaping crap on older crap isn't a very good foundation for the law.
And yes, the thought of "7 of 9" brings back memories for me also.
Post a Comment
<< Home