[RAILhead]

WASHINGTON - 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.

[d4nth3m4n]

whuh oh. this'll be an interesting thread.

[RAILhead]

Yeah, meltdown in 3..2..

[dcmacdaddy]

What does that do to the whole calculus of submitting a "bland" candidate for the bench in John Roberts instead of pushing for someone more "radical"? If they were going for safe with Roberts what happens now that there are two opening on the bench? Does Gonzalez get the nod now? I think watching the prognosticating on this one is going to be great fun.

[Kerrigan]

From the article http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/03/D8CD6LU00.html

The death President Bush his second court opening within pour months

uhh

Talk about scrambling to get this article finished; more typos than a SuperChicken blog entry.

Although, "The Death-President" does have a ring to it, sounds like a professional wrestler.

[dcmacdaddy]

<conspiracy mode>
Do you think the government had him whacked to distract from what's going on in New Orleans?
</conspiracy mode>

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

<conspiracy mode>
Do you think the government had him whacked to distract from what's going on in New Orleans?
</conspiracy mode>

heh. w'eve got louisiana, oil interests, and a dead justice, but *please* don't go all "pelican brief" (or "katrina brief") on us. okay? ;-)

live like you mean it.

laeth

[ironknee]

scary days indeed

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

From the article http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/03/D8CD6LU00.html

uhh

Talk about scrambling to get this article finished; more typos than a SuperChicken blog entry.

Although, "The Death-President" does have a ring to it, sounds like a professional wrestler.

Yeah, desire to get the word out asap.

pro wrestler that's a funny line!

[himself]

conservatives must be creaming in their pants right about now.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by himself

conservatives must be creaming in their pants right about now.

Rehnquist was a Republican appointee...

[himself]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Rehnquist was a Republican appointee...

...and the republicans will get to replace him with another conservative appointee. That's two in one year... Bonus Points!

In all fairness, the democrats would also be very orgasmic at the prospect of appointing two supreme court justices in the same term, too.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by himself

...and the republicans will get to replace him with another conservative appointee. That's two in one year... Bonus Points!

In all fairness, the democrats would also be very orgasmic at the prospect of appointing two supreme court justices in the same term, too.

I'm wondering how the current justices feel about some new kid on the block coming in to be Chief Justice?

I think I'd be pissed.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I'm wondering how the current justices feel about some new kid on the block coming in to be Chief Justice?

I think I'd be pissed.

Actually, this is the way it's usually done. Although there have been a few instances where a sitting justice was promoted to Chief Justice, normally a new justice is brought in. There's no law mandating or forbidding either one; it seems to be a matter of tradition more than anything else.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Actually, this is the way it's usually done. Although there have been a few instances where a sitting justice was promoted to Chief Justice, normally a new justice is brought in. There's no law mandating or forbidding either one; it seems to be a matter of tradition more than anything else.

I'd HATE to think hard feelings over being passed up for promotion to the top spot would prompt Justices Scalia or Thomas playing dirty tricks on Roberts like sending hookers to his hotel room and calling Dan Rather to stop by with a news crew. Or renting porno flicks in Roberts' name, then leaking it to Al Franken.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

<conspiracy mode>
Do you think the government had him whacked to distract from what's going on in New Orleans?
</conspiracy mode>

Yup, that's what happened. Because we didn't have any Chinese embassies to throw Tomahawk missiles at.

[Spliffdaddy]

Finally, a chance to restore some balance in the Supreme Court ! It's been far too liberal for far too long. It's just like I've been telling you folks...we'll live to see abortion become a crime once again.

[ironknee]

he was kinda kooky...he had those stripes put on his robe because he saw a gilbert and sullivan play

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Finally, a chance to restore some balance in the Supreme Court ! It's been far too liberal for far too long. It's just like I've been telling you folks...we'll live to see abortion become a crime once again.

How's that? Rehnquist was a conservative …

[Spliffdaddy]

Nah, he was too liberal for my taste.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Nah, he was too liberal for my taste.

So you're saying many Republicans are too liberal for you?

[MacNStein]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

So you're saying many Republicans are too liberal for you?

Knowing Spiffdaddy, yes, they are.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

So you're saying many Republicans are too liberal for you?

I suspect he was talking about the fact that Rehnquist wasn't a strict constructionist (that is, one who believes that the Constitution can only be interpreted in its own context, and that it is inappropriate to redefine the language according to modern sentiments).

The interesting thing is that strict constructionism is not necessarily a "conservative" or "liberal" viewpoint in the sense that people usually mean these terms. It is true that Scalia and Thomas, the two justices most known for practicing strict constructionism, are generally conservative. However, if they can be convinced that a politically-liberal viewpoint on a particular issue is more consistent with the original intent of the Constitution -and people have managed it more than once- they have no qualms about voting in a politically-liberal manner on that issue.

My wife is very much a liberal politically, but she's also a strict constructionist. This makes her position toward Scalia interesting, to say the least; she's no fan of him but she'd prefer to see more like him on the Court. I'm more neutral on Scalia's political stance, since I don't know as much about it as some of the others, but I suspect that Scalia would have it no other way.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I suspect he was talking about the fact that Rehnquist wasn't a strict ccontext, and that it is inappropriate to redefine the language according to modern sentiments).

The interesting thing is that strict constructionism is not necessarily a "conservative" or "liberal" viewpoint in the sense that people usually mean these terms. It is true that Scalia and Thomas, the two justices most known for practicing strict constructionism, are generally conservative. However, if they can be convinced that a politically-liberal viewpoint on a particular issue is more consistent with the original intent of the Constitution -and people have managed it more than once- they have no qualms about voting in a politically-liberal manner on that issue.

My wife is very much a liberal politically, but she's also a strict constructionist. This makes her position toward Scalia interesting, to say the least; she's no fan of him but she'd prefer to see more like him on the Court. I'm more neutral on Scalia's political stance, since I don't know as much about it as some of the others, but I suspect that Scalia would have it no other way.

Hmmm, I see. I've never heard of `constructionism' as a political philosophy. So they see their job as guardians of the Constitutions in the original sense, preferring an Amendment to reinterpretation, is that correct?

So is this why some conservatives have problems with them, as they allowed for things like abortion and gay marriage to happen, because there was no provision in the Constitution to deny this right (as a preference of personal liberties)?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Hmmm, I see. I've never heard of `constructionism' as a political philosophy. So they see their job as guardians of the Constitutions in the original sense, preferring an Amendment to reinterpretation, is that correct?

I don't know if I'd call it a political philosophy, per se. Certainly it's not a complete one; its focus is too narrow. But it could be considered part of a political philosophy.

So is this why some conservatives have problems with them, as they allowed for things like abortion and gay marriage to happen, because there was no provision in the Constitution to deny this right (as a preference of personal liberties)?

Pretty much. However, some liberals also have problems with them, because the same philosophy has been used against affirmative action and other traditionally-liberal causes. Basically, neither side of the conservative/liberal debate can completely rely on them, and so they both tend to be wary, though they're somewhat more popular with conservatives.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Pretty much. However, some liberals also have problems with them, because the same philosophy has been used against affirmative action and other traditionally-liberal causes. Basically, neither side of the conservative/liberal debate can completely rely on them, and so they both tend to be wary, though they're somewhat more popular with conservatives.

So the opposition to constructionism on both sides of the aisle is based on the fact that `neither side can rely on them'. I personally like personas who have a mind of their own, even though I don't have to support their points of views. People who don't mend with law as to promote their ideas.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I suspect he was talking about the fact that Rehnquist wasn't a strict constructionist (that is, one who believes that the Constitution can only be interpreted in its own context, and that it is inappropriate to redefine the language according to modern sentiments). *snip*

Yes I was. Thank you.

The job of the Supreme Court is to render judgement based on Constitutional facts... Without "re-interpreting" or "redefining" any of its inent - or creating new 'rights' for Americans.

Anybody with reading comprehension skills should be able to adequately serve as a Supreme Court justice.