TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Chief Justice William Rehnquist has Passed Away

Chief Justice William Rehnquist has Passed Away

Rest in peace, Justice Rehnquist. Despite my personal differences with the man's decisions, my sincere thoughts are with his family and friends:

quote:

Chief Justice Rehnquist Dies at Home Sat Sep 3,11:11 PM ET 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. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050904..._su_co/renquist

Good riddance. The only regret I have is that George W. Bush now gets to pack the court with another dangerous ideologue. Big business and religious right wingers will be dancing in the street when there are 2 new ultra conservative judges who are out of touch with mainstream American thinking elected.

Re: Chief Justice William Rehnquist has Passed Away

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Rest in peace, Justice Rehnquist. Despite my personal differences with the man's decisions, my sincere thoughts are with his family and friends:

Kind respectful words. I appreciate your sincerity, Opus. My thoughts are also with his family in their time of grief.

On a side note, I imagine there will be a significant step up and ensuing firefight across the bows of Congress now that there are 2 appointments on the line. This should be both ugly and exciting.

Re: Re: Chief Justice William Rehnquist has Passed Away

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Kind respectful words. I appreciate your sincerity, Opus. My thoughts are also with his family in their time of grief. On a side note, I imagine there will be a significant step up and ensuing firefight across the bows of Congress now that there are 2 appointments on the line. This should be both ugly and exciting.

Yeah, politics unfortunately never rest. I already heard that someone from Fox News (Hannity I think) say that since Roberts was a "moderate" pick, Bush should now be able to pick a "strict constructionist".

Given the stuff we've seen on Roberts so far, if he's a "moderate" in Bush's eyes, I'd hate to see the extremist pick.

quote:

Originally posted by dj ... Big business and religious right wingers will be dancing in the street when there are 2 new ultra conservative judges who are out of touch with mainstream American thinking elected.

"Mainstream"??

I'd say the "mainstream" elected the more conservative Republicans over-whelmingly last election...if a more conservative Judge gets nominated, then how would you ever conceive that this is out of touch with the "mainstream"?

You're in the minority right now...get used to it!

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco "Mainstream"?? I'd say the "mainstream" elected the more conservative Republicans over-whelmingly last election...if a more conservative Judge gets nominated, then how would you ever conceive that this is out of touch with the "mainstream"? You're in the minority right now...get used to it!

The mainstream shares the views, according to pools, of the 48% of the country that voted for the other guy. These views, among other things entail upholding Roe v Wade, upholding women's rights in general, upholding the separation of church and state, upholding the law of keeping school-led prayers out of the classroom, upholding the right to privacy, among other things.

You have a problem with the majority viewpoint on that? Sorry, but there's a valid reason why the majority wants to uphold these views, as well as request a judge that respects and upholds similar views.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The mainstream shares the views, according to pools, of the 48% of the country that voted for the other guy.

I love Liberals, lol.

They're always in the "mainstream" and are "progressive"........descriptions which they're the first to assign themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Also known as the "tyranny of the majority", precisely the reason why democracies require a strong, impartial judiciary to uphold the constitutional rights of all citizens. Let's hope the replacements Bush chooses for the SCOTUS are committed to this ideal...

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I love Liberals, lol.

Oh, and I sure do love Wingnut Conservatives, "lol"! Especially those kind that don't do any homework for themselves to support their cute little assertions.

quote:

They're always in the "mainstream" and are "progressive"........descriptions which they're the first to assign themselves.

Well let's take a look at these "mainstream" ideas by us "progressives" and see if they are, in fact, of the majority opinion of the people, shall we?:

1. Abortion:

Which one do you like? Pew, CBS News, CNN/Gallop, ABC News/Washington Post, AP/Ipsos? Here ya go:

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

and

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pa...0/epolls.0.html
(scroll down to "abortion should be...)

Who's consistently in the "mainstream" there in regards to women's rights, champ?

2. Stricter laws on gun control:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

3. Pro-environment, and Bush not doing enough for it (by all acounts, doing exactly the opposite):

http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm

4. Gay marriage OR civil unions (I purposely tie them together, as most Lefties would accept either/or):

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

and

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pa...0/epolls.0.html
(scroll down to "policy towards same-sex couples")


5. Social Security and Bush's privatization scheme:

http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm

6. Taxes and whose being fairly taxed, including corporations:

http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm

7. The importance of balancing the budget:

http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm

and

quote:

Balanced Budget: Sixty-seven percent of Americans believe that the fact that the United States will have federal budget deficits for the foreseeable future is either "a crisis" or "a major problem" (Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll, January 2003). Seventy percent of Americans prefer a balanced budget to more tax cuts (CBS News Poll, February 2002), and 53 percent would give up their tax cuts to balance the budget (CBS News Poll, February 2002). Sixty-three percent of Americans believe that we "should work to maintain a balanced budget consistent with our values" (Penn & Schoen, July 1998). http://www.independentnation.org/moderate_majority.htm

8. School prayer and the separation of Church and State:

quote:

Sixty-nine percent of Americans agree with the statement "I have no problem with a quiet moment, but I'm against any stricture that says 'You will pray.'" (Newsweek Poll/Princeton Survey Research, September 1995). This poll was updated eight years later by the Luntz Research Companies (August 2003), again showing similar results: Sixty-three percent of Americans continue to agree that a quiet moment should be permissible, but reject the idea of mandatory prayer in public. In addition, an overwhelming 84 percent of Americans opposed the contested federal court ruling that the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional (Gallup Poll, June 2002). Americans don't want religion imposed upon them or unreasonably forced out of the public realm by activist lawsuits. http://www.independentnation.org/moderate_majority.htm

9. Universal healthcare:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/livi...31020_poll.html

And the majority of physicians appreciate it as well:

quote:

"more than half of academic physicians, including most medical school deans, now endorse single payer (national health insurance), as do 40% of small business owners." http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_...cfm?DR_ID=19344

10. Serious public misgivings on the Patriot Act, with some 71% disagreeing with the secret search provisions, and 1/2 not too happy with the FBI right to secretly search citizens' records:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/t...riot-main_x.htm


11. No Child Left Behind flop:

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twinc...on/12457579.htm

http://www.boston.com/news/educatio...public_schools/


12. Disapproval of Iraq invasion:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168174,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/03/iraq.poll/


13. People believing Bush is honest:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8561443/


14. And, of course, Bush's overall approval rating. Fuck, just choose one from Google:

http://news.google.com/news?q=bush%...lr=&sa=N&tab=wn


You can also find the majority disapproval marks on Bush and the economy in those articles cited in #14 as well
----------------------------

So who's in the mainstream, champ? You actually given this topic a thought before opening your mouth?

^^^LOL

You sure like to invest in "polls" versus the reality of "votes".

Bottom line is; If he is so out of touch with the majority of the country, then he wouldn't have been re-elected.

Now if you'd like to take my "poll", bend over.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco ^^^LOL You sure like to invest in "polls" versus the reality of "votes".

"^^^LOL"

You sure like to ignore points that directly refute your assertions.

quote:

Bottom line is; If he is so out of touch with the majority of the country, then he wouldn't have been re-elected.

Re-election was back in November, champ. Times change quickly on many issues (like Iraq - most analysts agree this issue was what won Bush his re-election). And that only constitutes, what, not even 50% of the total number of eligible voters. Of course I give those nonvoters no excuses, nevertheless they do have an opinion on matters.

Furthermore, the vote itself does not reflect better campaign strategies and grassroot movements that effectively won Bush his election. Kerry's strategies, most would agree, were shit, and he certainly wasn't the best candidate out there. Unfortunately the hapless Dems. and their DLC realized this too little, too late.

Finally, many people are fucking idiots, and I say that with conviction. Thomas Frank was right on the fucking mark when he mentions the typical Kansas voter - they get sold on issues like abortion and gay marriage to vote for the fundamental GOP douchebag (like Brownback, for example), and then get bent right over while Brownback effectively caters to business corps. that fuck these low wage workers right up the ass. The moderate Republicans (whom are consistently more affluent here in KS - i.e. Kansas City) look at these low-wage idiots and wonder why they keep voting for these fundy hacks, but they don't say a word because these hacks continuously give the affluent the better deal in tax breaks and economic interests.

Most voters are clueless and fail to examine their nominees further. Nothing could be done about that.

quote:

Now if you'd like to take my "poll", bend over.

Well I didn't realize you have some sexual tendencies with the same sex. Sorry hon, I am taken, and my wife probably wouldn't like your sexual advances too much.

But I do hope you come out of the closet soon - your party does tend to vote quite often against your personal interests...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So who's in the mainstream, champ? You actually given this topic a thought before opening your mouth?

Well, to be fair having each of your points backed by a majority, does not mean that the majority backs them seen as a whole. I think your last election made it pretty clear that that connection does not exist (unfortunately).

quote:

Telling the Truth About Chief Justice Rehnquist (81 comments ) My mother always told me that when a person dies, one should not say anything bad about him. My mother was wrong. History requires truth, not puffery or silence, especially about powerful governmental figures. And obituaries are a first draft of history. So here�s the truth about Chief Justice Rehnquist you won�t hear on Fox News or from politicians. Chief Justice William Rehnquist set back liberty, equality, and human rights perhaps more than any American judge of this generation. His rise to power speaks volumes about the current state of American values. Let�s begin at the beginning. Rehnquist bragged about being first in his class at Stanford Law School. Today Stanford is a great law school with a diverse student body, but in the late 1940s and early 1950s, it discriminated against Jews and other minorities, both in the admission of students and in the selection of faculty. Justice Stephen Breyer recalled an earlier period of Stanford�s history: �When my father was at Stanford, he could not join any of the social organizations because he was Jewish, and those organizations, at that time, did not accept Jews.� Rehnquist not only benefited in his class ranking from this discrimination; he was also part of that bigotry. When he was nominated to be an associate justice in 1971, I learned from several sources who had known him as a student that he had outraged Jewish classmates by goose-stepping and heil-Hitlering with brown-shirted friends in front of a dormitory that housed the school�s few Jewish students. He also was infamous for telling racist and anti-Semitic jokes. As a law clerk, Rehnquist wrote a memorandum for Justice Jackson while the court was considering several school desegregation cases, including Brown v. Board of Education. Rehnquist�s memo, entitled �A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases,� defended the separate-but-equal doctrine embodied in the 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Rehnquist concluded the Plessy �was right and should be reaffirmed.� When questioned about the memos by the Senate Judiciary Committee in both 1971 and 1986, Rehnquist blamed his defense of segregation on the dead Justice, stating � under oath � that his memo was meant to reflect the views of Justice Jackson. But Justice Jackson voted in Brown, along with a unanimous Court, to strike down school segregation. According to historian Mark Tushnet, Justice Jackson�s longtime legal secretary called Rehnquist�s Senate testimony an attempt to �smear[] the reputation of a great justice.� Rehnquist later admitted to defending Plessy in arguments with fellow law clerks. He did not acknowledge that he committed perjury in front of the Judiciary Committee to get his job. The young Rehnquist began his legal career as a Republican functionary by obstructing African-American and Hispanic voting at Phoenix polling locations (�Operation Eagle Eye�). As Richard Cohen of The Washington Post wrote, �[H]e helped challenge the voting qualifications of Arizona blacks and Hispanics. He was entitled to do so. But even if he did not personally harass potential voters, as witnesses allege, he clearly was a brass-knuckle partisan, someone who would deny the ballot to fellow citizens for trivial political reasons -- and who made his selection on the basis of race or ethnicity.� In a word, he started out his political career as a Republican thug. Rehnquist later bought a home in Vermont with a restrictive covenant that barred sale of the property to ''any member of the Hebrew race.� Rehnquist�s judicial philosophy was result-oriented, activist, and authoritarian. He sometimes moderated his views for prudential or pragmatic reasons, but his vote could almost always be predicted based on who the parties were, not what the legal issues happened to be. He generally opposed the rights of gays, women, blacks, aliens, and religious minorities. He was a friend of corporations, polluters, right wing Republicans, religious fundamentalists, homophobes, and other bigots. Rehnquist served on the Supreme Court for thirty-three years and as chief justice for nineteen. Yet no opinion comes to mind which will be remembered as brilliant, innovative, or memorable. He will be remembered not for the quality of his opinions but rather for the outcomes decided by his votes, especially Bush v. Gore, in which he accepted an Equal Protection claim that was totally inconsistent with his prior views on that clause. He will also be remembered as a Chief Justice who fought for the independence and authority of the judiciary. This is his only positive contribution to an otherwise regressive career. Within moments of Rehnquist�s death, Fox News called and asked for my comments, presumably aware that I was a longtime critic of the late Chief Justice. After making several of these points to Alan Colmes (who was supposed to be interviewing me), Sean Hannity intruded, and when he didn�t like my answers, he cut me off and terminated the interview. Only after I was off the air and could not respond did the attack against me begin, which is typical of Hannity�s bullying ambush style. He is afraid to attack when there�s someone there to respond. Since the interview, I�ve received dozens of e-mail hate messages, some of which are overtly anti-Semitic. One writer called me �a jew prick that takes it in the a** from ruth ginzburg [sic].� Another said I am �an ignorant socialist left-wing political hack �. You�re like a little Heinrich Himmler! (even the resemblance is uncanny!).� Yet another informed me that I �personally make us all lament the defeat of the Nazis!� A more restrained viewer found me to be �a disgrace to the Law, to Harvard, and to humanity.� All this, for refusing to put a deceptive gloss on a man who made his career undermining the rights and liberties of American citizens. My mother would want me to remain silent, but I think my father would have wanted me to tell the truth. My father was right. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-...t-c_b_6844.html

huh. my parents were wrong about most things too.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Re-election was back in November, champ. Times change quickly on many issues (like Iraq - most analysts agree this issue was what won Bush his re-election).

And yet, I saw "polls" at election time which stated that most people supposedly disagreed with the war in Iraq. If this were true, then Bush would have lost....if it wasn't true, then your use of polls as examples of "proof-positive" on what the "mainstream" believes has been soundly refuted, by none other than yourself. So much for polls, either way.

I might also point out how wrong the "polls" were just prior to the last election which stated rather uniformally that Bush was going to LOSE!

You want to know what "changes" more often than someone elected twice to the same office by the "mainstream"?

POLLS!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco And yet, I saw "polls" at election time which stated that most people supposedly disagreed with the war in Iraq.

A bit of a clarification on my part is needed. The issue of Iraq by itself was not the deciding factor. Rather, it was successful though outright misleading event of tying the war on terrorism to Saddam and the invasion of Iraq. To be specific, let's examine the polls on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pa...0/epolls.0.html

With Iraq itself we see a mixture of results:


Case Against Iraq being the primary issue:
1. Came in 4th behind Moral Values, Economy, and Terrorism

2. HOW ARE THINGS GOING FOR U.S. IN IRAQ? - "badly" wins 52% to 44%

3. IRAQ WAR MADE U.S. MORE SECURE? - "No" wins 52% to 46%


Case for Iraq being the primary issue:

1. DECISION TO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ - wins 51% to 45%

2. IS IRAQ WAR PART OF WAR ON TERRORISM? - "yes" wins 55% to 42%


Now this last question is the one I am referring to - this is the successful strategy of Rove to tie the war on terrorism, i.e. link bin Laden to Iraq. How many people to this day STILL believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11? You think people come to those erroneous conclusions on their own?

Now in regards to terrorism, this issue by itself wins hands down for Bush-

1. Comes in 3rd (19%) behind Moral Values and Economy

-Now link both the war on terrorism together with this issue of terrorism, which to the majority of people shown earlier this is a definitive link, and you have yourself a primary issue that supercedes all others

2. Trust Kerry vs. trust Bush to handle the war on terrorism? Clearly Bush wins out. This was an easy one for 2 obvious reasons-

a) Kerry's campaign pertaining to this issue was severely lacking and unclear overall

b) Bush was already the Commander in Chief, and the incombent during a time of war has NEVER been unseated. We really had two wars going on here that were intermingled together - War on Terrorism and War in Iraq. Again, the mixing was not by accident, though it's clear from all intelligence reports that Iraq had nothing to do with our War on Terrorism, especially in dealing with the Al Qaeda fucks who actually attacked us.

3. Worried about terrorism again wins hands down 71% to 28%, and again highly favors the incumbent during a time of war.

quote:

If this were true, then Bush would have lost....if it wasn't true, then your use of polls as examples of "proof-positive" on what the "mainstream" believes has been soundly refuted, by none other than yourself. So much for polls, either way. I might also point out how wrong the "polls" were just prior to the last election which stated rather uniformally that Bush was going to LOSE!

Point taken, however those exit polls were a bit different from the other opinion polls on specific issues that I cited earlier.

quote:

You want to know what "changes" more often than someone elected twice to the same office by the "mainstream"? POLLS!!!!

I do not deny that the majority of the voting public decided who to be their president. But to consider that deciding factor to be the "mainstream" view on every given topic that Bush decides is highly fallacious. Take Bush's little Social Security fromp last Spring. The more he talked, the more the public examined closer what he was proposing and decided his privatization plan was full of shit.

I firmly stand by my position that most of the voting public doesn't know jack shit about either candidate, and I know most Conservatives would even agree with that point (like when Clinton was re-elected). The fact that people were sold the bill on being better "protected" by Bush than inept Kerry does not entail that the idiot public believes EVERYTHING Bush believes in are therefore their shared beliefs as well.

Again, I make no excuses for those that do not vote, but you are talking about, what, roughly 45% of those eligible to vote actually voted, and out of that you had a mere 51% out of that who voted for the winner. I suck badly at math, but for argument's sake let's just say that it's about 27% or so of the eligible voters actually voted for the winner

So now we have roughly 27% of the eligible voters representing "mainstream" views on all issues? Like I said, my math sucks, but please tell me how 27% represents the majority opinion and is therefore "mainstream"?

And BTW, my working definition of "mainstream" is a consistent >50%.

Now I grant you that issues definitely change over time - such as the Iraq war. However, the mainstream views on other issues I mentioned - abortion rights, stricter gun control, pro-environment, social security, separation of Church and State, and so on extend back beyond this one President.

And those views are, once again, consistent with the views of the large majority of those on the Left. Hence, the Left consistently shares these "mainstream" issues. And therefore, it would be prudent for this President to nominate a judge who tends to respect and even share these mainstream views in accordance to the Constitution and previous decisions (such as Roe v Wade, Lemon Test, etc.).

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.