MY CONDOLENCES TO RALPH NEAS
>
Before we start speculating about what kind of a monstrosity the Bush Regime is planning to install as the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a few words should be said about Rehnquist. An Arizona Republican operative, he was first appointed to the Supreme Court by Nixon as payback for hands-on dirty work he did to keep Latinos and other minorities from voting, he was elevated to Chief Justice by Reagan in 1986. He will probably be most-remembered for presiding over Clinton's impeachment trial and for helping to steal the 2000 election from Al Gore, the rightful winner. More recently the ultra partisan Rehnquist was key in getting Bush to nominate his former clerk, John Roberts-- a key operative/conspirator in stealing the 2000 election for Bush-- to the Court. He has always been a hardened ideologue who used the Court to score points for the most extremist far right agendas, always voting in favor of corporations over individuals and always seeking to curb individual liberties and freedoms. Although Republicans have tried to whitewash his earlier career, he will always be remembered as a vicious hate-filled racist who opposed desegregation of public schools and protection of voting rights and civil rights for minorities.
Rehnquist's first brush with notoriety was in 1964 when he was a GOP hack in South Phoenix who sat at a polling station in a minority neighborhood throwing up roadblocks to prevent African-Americans and Mexican-Americans from voting and to hold up the lines in order to discourage voter participation in a heavily Democratic district-- the same kind of stuff the Republicans were pulling last year in African-American neighborhoods in Ohio and Florida. Rehnquist was a hero in right-wing circles for intimidating minority voters and was duly awarded for being a thug. History is likely to judge him and his narrow-minded and bigoted tenure of the Court harshly.
posted by DownWithTyranny @ 9:12 PM
3 comments
|
Reddit
3 Comments:
REHNQUIST'S FIRST AMENDMENT
Geoffrey R. Stone
Sep 4,12:59 AM ET
What was William Rehnquist's legacy as a Justice of the Supreme Court? Many people will address that question in the days and weeks to come. Here is a straightforward analysis of his record in cases involving the First Amendment's "freedom of speech, or of the press."
In his more than 30 years on the Supreme Court, Justice Rehnquist participated in 259 decisions involving these freedoms. In these cases, Rehnquist voted to support the First Amendment claim only 20 per cent of the time. In these same cases, the other justices with whom he sat (Blackmun, Brennan, Breyer, Burger, Douglas, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Marshall, O’Connor, Powell, Scalia, Souter, Stephens, Stewart, Thomas, and White) voted to uphold the First Amendment claim 53 per cent of the time. Thus, Rehnquist’s colleagues were 2.6 times more likely than Rehnquist to hold a law in violation of “the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
But this only scratches the surface. Even the Supreme Court has easy cases. These cases are best identified by unanimity. If all the justices agree that a law is constitutional or unconstitutional, an individual justice’s vote does not tell us anything very interesting about his views. Sixty-three of the 259 cases were decided by unanimous vote. If we exclude those “easy” decisions, we find that Justice Rehnquist voted to reject the First Amendment claim an astonishing 92 per cent of the time. In these same cases, the other justices voted to uphold the First Amendment challenge 55 per cent of the time. Thus, in non-unanimous decisions the other justices were 6 times more likely than Justice Rehnquist to find a law in violation of “the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
This may be misleading. Perhaps the “liberal” justices, such as Brennan, Douglas and Marshall, skewed the data. Before drawing any conclusions, we should therefore compare Rehnquist’s voting record with those of his more “conservative” colleagues, such as Burger, Scalia, and Thomas. That comparison shows that Burger was 1.8 times more likely than Rehnquist to rule in vote in favor of the First Amendment, Scalia was 1.6 times more likely, and Thomas was 1.5 times more likely. Thus, during his tenure, Rehnquist was by an impressive margin the member of the Supreme Court least likely to invalidate a law as violating “the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
Even more striking were Justice Rehnquist’s votes in cases involving “the freedom of . . . the press.” These decisions addressed such issues as whether the First Amendment guarantees a journalist-source privilege, whether the government may enjoin the publication of truthful information, and whether the press has a First Amendment right of access to certain places or information. In the 33 non-unanimous decisions involving “the freedom of . . . the press,” Rehnquist rejected the constitutional claim 100 per cent of the time. In more than 30 years on the Court, Rehnquist never once found a violation of “the freedom of . . . the press” in a non-unanimous decision.
Indeed, there were only three areas in which Justice Rehnquist showed any interest in enforcing the constitutional guarantee of free expression: in cases involving commercial advertising, religious expression, and campaign finance regulation. Rehnquist was 2.6 times more likely to invalidate laws restricting commercial advertising than laws restricting political or artistic expression. He voted to invalidate campaign finance legislation 67 per cent of the time, and he voted to invalidate restrictions on religious expression 100 per cent of the time. Indeed, in non-unanimous decisions, Rehnquist was 14.7 times more likely to vote to invalidate a law restricting commercial advertising, campaign expenditures, or religious expression than one involving any other aspect of “the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
What all this leads me to conclude is that Justice Rehnquist’s record with respect to “the freedom of speech, or of the press” was dismal. Not only was he the Justice least likely to protect these freedoms, but his general “passivity” towards these freedoms cannot be defended as principled, coherent, or neutral. His inclination to sustain First Amendment claims only when they involved commercial advertising, campaign expenditures, or religious expression, belies any plausible theory of originalism, judicial restraint, or even-handed constitutional interpretation. When all was said and done, Justice Rehnquist's First Amendment belonged to corporations, wealthy political candidates, and churches. In this, at least, he won't be missed.
JOHN ROBERTS: UNCOMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE
By Marjorie Cohn
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 06 September 2005
George W. Bush has nominated John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. Bush lauded Roberts for his "goodwill and decency toward others." Yet Roberts' record reveals a callous disregard for the rights of people very much like the tens of thousands who have died and been rendered homeless by Katrina.
The outpouring of compassion by people all over this country - and indeed, the world - in the wake of Hurricane Katrina stands in stark contrast to Bush's actions both before and after the tragedy. In spite of warnings about the weak levees in New Orleans, Bush cut the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for levee construction by 44 percent. By sending the National Guard to fight in his trumped-up war on Iraq, Bush deprived the people of New Orleans of critical assistance immediately after the hurricane struck. The day after what may be the worst disaster ever to hit the United States, Bush refused to interrupt his golf game to exercise badly needed leadership.
Most of the tragic images flashing across our television screens are of African Americans. They are suffering indescribable hardship as a result of an administration that failed to protect them from the predicted hurricane, and then failed to timely render aid that would have saved thousands of lives.
John Roberts' career has established his credentials as an uncompassionate conservative. He has worked consistently to deny access to the courts to individuals who have suffered harm like those in New Orleans. He has long been an enemy of civil rights - for the poor, for minorities, for women, for the disabled, for workers, and for a clean and safe environment.
Roberts tried to cut back the federal law that allows people to sue the government when they have been deprived of their federal rights. When he worked at the Solicitor General's office in the George Bush I administration, Roberts wrote an amicus brief in which he argued that the state of Virginia should not reimburse hospitals for Medicaid claims at reasonable rates. Roberts said the Medicaid Act did not create any enforceable rights. Roberts would likely deny relief to people in New Orleans who seek to recover medical costs from a government that failed to protect them.
Roberts viewed legislation to fortify the Fair Housing Act as "government intrusion."
Roberts condemned a Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas law that allowed schools to deny admission to the children of undocumented workers.
Roberts fought for a narrow interpretation of the Voting Rights Act that would have made it much harder for minorities to get elected to public office. He mischaracterized the Act as requiring "a quota system for electoral politics." Robert's characterization of the Voting Rights Act borders on racism.
Roberts contended that Congress could pass a law to prevent all federal courts from ordering busing to achieve school desegregation, a position much more extreme than that adopted by the Reagan administration. Roberts would likely have agreed with his boss William Rehnquist, who argued to his boss Justice Robert Jackson that the racist Plessy v. Ferguson's separate but equal doctrine should be maintained.
Roberts took the position that affirmative action programs are bound to fail because they require recruiting "inadequately prepared candidates," another unfounded and racist stance.
Roberts has referred to the "so-called 'right to privacy'" in the Constitution; he argued that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled. Roberts' position would consign poor women who could not afford to travel to a state that does allow abortion to coat hangers in back alleys. Roberts would likely vote to uphold state laws that made the sale of contraceptives illegal, which the Court struck down in Griswold v. Connecticut.
Roberts worked to keep women who have suffered gender discrimination out of court. He argued for a narrow interpretation of Title IX that would effectively eviscerate its protections altogether. Roberts wrote an amicus brief in which he argued that a student who was sexually molested by her high school teacher was not entitled to compensatory damages under Title IX. Fortunately, the Supreme Court held otherwise, saying that the girl would have "no remedy at all" if it had adopted Roberts' position.
Roberts ridiculed the gender pay equity theory of equal pay for comparable work as a "radical redistributive concept." He mocked female Republican members of Congress who supported comparable worth, writing, "Their slogan might as well be 'from each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.'"
Roberts supported a dramatic weakening of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. He maintained that a deaf student who got by in school by lip-reading and using a hearing aid was not entitled under the Act to receive the services of a sign-language interpreter in the classroom.
Roberts defended Toyota for firing a woman with carpal tunnel syndrome.
Roberts argued on behalf of the National Mining Association that West Virginia citizens could not prevent mining companies from extracting coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams.
Throughout his career, John Roberts has acted without "goodwill and decency toward others." His positions have demonstrated a mean spirit that flies in the face of what we like to think America stands for. The 50-year-old Roberts would have the opportunity to shape the nation's highest court for the next two or three decades. A Roberts Court would threaten the rights of all but the rich and powerful. It is time for the Democrats to utter the "f" word: Filibuster.
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists.
WHAT IS IT WITH THESE RIGHT-WING EXTREMISTS? ARE THEY ALL ON DRUGS. FIRST IT'S LIMBAUGH AND HIS HILLBILLY HEROIN AND NOW IT TURNS OUT REHNQUIST WAS TOO ZONKED OUT ON PLACIDYL TO THINK STRAIGHT!
Chief Justice Rehnquist's Drug Habit
--The very model of a modern chief justice!
-Jack Shafer, Slate, September 9, 2005
As we usher the 16th chief justice of the United States to his celestial reward, let us remember him in full. He labored successfully to return power to the states, treated colleagues with warmth and respect, was said to be a gregarious boss, and, inspired by a judge's costume he saw in the performance of a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta, added four silly gold stripes to each sleeve of his judicial robe.
And for the nine years between 1972 and the end of 1981, William Rehnquist consumed great quantities of the potent sedative-hypnotic Placidyl. So great was Rehnquist's Placidyl habit, dependency, or addiction—depending on how you regard long-term drug use—that by the last quarter of 1981 he began slurring his speech in public, became tongue-tied while pronouncing long words, and sometimes had trouble finishing his thoughts.
The parade of news stories and TV segments that followed Rehnquist's death made little mention of his affair with Placidyl. New York Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse offered more than any reporter, but still just 57 words near the end of a 6,100-word story. The Boston Globe made a two-sentence mention. The Washington Post story about his death ignored this chapter of his life, as did the Los Angeles Times.
(Slate can't brag on this score. David Plotz's 1998 "Assessment" and last week's Rehnquist retrospective-obituaries by Dahlia Lithwick, Walter Dellinger, and Richard W. Garnett avoided the topic.)
Obviously the lede of the chief's obituary should not have read, "William H. Rehnquist, a man with a jones for Placidyl, died yesterday. He also served as chief justice of the United States for 19 years." But the reluctance to explore this part of Rehnquist's life at any length illustrates a general rule of journalism: Most obituarists prefer the airbrush to the sharpened pen when it comes to the famous and powerful. In Rehnquist's case, reporters can't make the "I was on deadline" excuse. The chief justice gave generous advance notice of his impending death for months, and novella-length pieces like the Greenhouse obit were hardly banged out over Labor Day weekend.
Recounting Rehnquist's Placidyl story isn't just a bit of journalistic blood sport at the expense of a dead man. His unorthodox drug consumption first made headlines in 1982, when the Washington Post (owned by the same corporation that owns Slate) broke the story, when he entered the hospital to get off the stuff. The Placidyl episode was also news in 1986, when President Ronald Reagan upgraded Rehnquist from associate justice by nominating him as chief. A confidential report on Rehnquist's medical history prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee, which contained more details about his habit, was leaked to the press.
The Rehnquist story deserves a third airing today if only to illustrate the ugly double standards that excuse extreme drug use by the powerful, especially if their connection is a prescribing doctor, and condemns to draconian prison terms the guy who purchases his drugs on the street. Reviewing Rehnquist's tale one more time also demonstrates the reluctance of the Senate—and some members of the press—to grade the mental competency of judges and judicial nominees.
The 1986 medical report on Rehnquist described him as seriously "dependent" on Placidyl from 1977 to 1981. He often consumed three month's worth of the drug in one month before requesting more from Dr. Freeman H. Cary, the attending physician to Congress, who prescribed it. Anonymous sources told the Post that Cary first prescribed Placidyl to Rehnquist in 1971 to help him sleep through his severe back pains, but "Cary reportedly told the FBI that Rehnquist had taken it before."
What is Placidyl? Some news clips, such as the Boston Globe obit, call it a painkiller. Yes, it's a painkiller—in the sense that a fistfull of Ambien is a pain killer. You take it and it knocks you out. Placidyl is a "sedative-hypnotic" developed to help insomniacs sleep. See this period advertisement for Placidyl and this one, too. The abuse potential of Placidyl has always been rated as high: An associate professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University told the Post in 1986 that it was "a strong drug I would use only under very exceptional circumstance" and that he wouldn't give it to people for more than one or two weeks. He added that it shouldn't be given to patients who suffered both pain and insomnia.
The standard dose for adults is 500 milligrams, taken at bedtime. Rehnquist initially took 200 milligrams daily but by 1981 was taking 1,500 milligrams a day. Increasing dosage indicates drug dependency, the Johns Hopkins professor explained. For more about Placidyl's potency, see this "product information" from 1971 distributed by the Abbott Laboratories, the manufacturer in the early 1970s, and reprinted in Licit and Illicit Drugs by Edward M. Brecher.
After the Post broke the story about Rehnquist's drug habit, other news organizations reported that his "health problem" had been apparent to Supreme Court observers for three months before he was hospitalized on Dec. 27, 1981, (UPI) and that "reporters and lawyers at the Court" had notice Rehnquist's speaking problem "in recent months" (New York Times).
According to a Jan. 4, 1982, New York Times account, Rehnquist sought help with the drug in December 1981 because it no longer relieved his pain. He entered George Washington University Hospital on Dec. 27. According to the physician spokesman for the hospital he suffered "disturbances in mental clarity, characterized by distorted perceptions," as doctors weaned him off the drug. The spokesman added that after his Placidyl was cut off, Rehnquist began ''hearing things and seeing things that other people did not hear and see.'' The doctors took his dose back up before re-weaning him. By mid-January, Rehnquist returned to the bench.
When Rehnquist's drug problem became an issue during the 1986 confirmation hearings, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, defended Rehnquist in a Post story, saying he got into trouble with Placidyl because he was "a very compliant patient" who "followed the advice" of his doctors. Ah, yes, one of the most brilliant jurists of his time was the victim of his rotten doctors for almost a decade! Are we to believe that one of the court's sharpest minds never availed himself of a Physicians' Desk Reference for independent medical information, or in any way tried to educate himself about the drug he was taking in larger and larger quantities? The Senate Judiciary Committee asked Rehnquist no questions about his drug use, and he was, of course, confirmed as chief justice. The debate over whether Rehnquist's drug use might be relevant to his fitness to serve as chief never got started.
The Rehnquist narrative presented here owes much to legal scholar David J. Garrow's "Mental Decrepitude on the U.S. Supreme Court: The Historical Case for a 28th Amendment," a 50,000-word article in the fall 2000 issue of the University of Chicago Law Review. Garrow believes a constitutional amendment should be passed forcing judges to retire at 75, and he inquires about the mental competency of a number of Supreme Court justices, including Rehnquist and Thurgood Marshall. Most court observers now concede that Marshall had lost much of his hearing and half his bag of marbles by his final years of service on the court. Garrow blames the Supreme Court press corps for not aggressively covering either such mental slippage or Rehnquist's "publicly visible struggle with deleterious overmedication."
One fascinating aspect of Rehnquist's drug habit is that nobody has ever demonstrated that his performance ever flagged during his decade-long binge. USA Today Supreme Court correspondent Joan Biskupic didn't cover the court during Rehnquist's drug days, but in examining the papers of justices Brennan, Powell, Marshall, and Blackmun, she says, "There's no sign that [Rehnquist] wasn't keeping up with his work" over the period he was taking Placidyl.
Tony Mauro, who covers the court for American Lawyer Media's Legal Times, says Rehnquist's speech problem manifested itself just as he joined the beat. "I do remember him speaking oddly," he says, but he didn't give it much thought. "In retrospect, I should have. A lot of us [reporters] felt that way."
A defense can be made for not including the Placidyl saga in Rehnquist's obituaries. As the Washington Post Supreme Court correspondent Charles Lane points out, his story was not intended to be "a complete biography." Lane has written about Rehnquist's drug use in the context of his thyroid cancer.
But am I unfair to link the reluctance of journalists to zoom in for a close-up on a dead person's warts to a general deference to authority or, in the case of Rehnquist, a class bias that predisposes them to look past his drug habit as purely a medical problem? I think not. This was a watershed event in Rehnquist's life. Did the experience—being dazed on drugs, humiliated in the press, getting off Placidyl—contribute to his jurisprudence? How could it not have? Supreme Court correspondents, start your word processors.
Post a Comment
<< Home