DOCSLIB.ORG

The Honorable William H. Rehnquist 1924–2005

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Honorable William H. Rehnquist 1924–2005 (Trim Line) (Trim Line) THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST 1924–2005 [ 1 ] VerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE VerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE (Trim Line) (Trim Line) WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES MEMORIAL TRIBUTES IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES VerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE scourt1.eps (Trim Line) (Trim Line) Photograph by Dane Penland, Smithsonian Institution Courtesy the Supreme Court of the United States William H. Rehnquist VerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE 23500.001 (Trim Line) (Trim Line) S. DOC. 109–7 WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES MEMORIAL TRIBUTES IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2006 VerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE scourt1.eps (Trim Line) (Trim Line) Compiled under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing Trent Lott, Chairman VerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6687 Sfmt 6687 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE (Trim Line) (Trim Line) Order for Printing Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators be permitted to submit tributes to Chief Justice REHNQUIST for the Record until September 30, 2005, and that all tributes be printed as a Senate document. [ iii ] VerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE VerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE (Trim Line) (Trim Line) FOREWORD For more than 33 years on the Supreme Court of the United States, WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST stood his ground, in- sisting on both institutional vigor and constitutional rigor. Echoing Alexander Hamilton’s call for the ‘‘complete inde- pendence of the courts,’’ Chief Justice REHNQUIST consist- ently and directly defended judicial independence as the ‘‘crown jewel’’ and the ‘‘touchstone’’ of our constitutional sys- tem of government. Yet Chief Justice REHNQUIST did not see judicial independ- ence merely as an end in itself, as a license for judges to do as they wished, but as a means to an end. In his 19th and final annual report assessing the state of the judiciary, he wrote: ‘‘The Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law.’’ Thank- fully, he stood for the judiciary using its independence prop- erly to fulfill its limited, but essential, role in our system of government. Indeed, Chief Justice REHNQUIST stood for a judiciary that would do only what it was supposed to do. Like the legisla- tive and executive branches, the judiciary is, after all, part of a system of government and can only be understood as such. In one dissenting opinion, Chief Justice REHNQUIST de- scribed the judiciary’s role in that system this way: ‘‘The Court’s role as a final expositor of the Constitution is well es- tablished, but its role as a Platonic guardian admonishing those responsible to public opinion as if they were truant schoolchildren has no similar place in our system of govern- ment.’’ One of Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s many former law clerks who now populate law school faculties recently wrote in trib- ute that ‘‘[r]unning through his opinions on any number of issues . is a commitment to the notion that our Constitu- tion leaves the hard questions, generally speaking, to the people.’’ When judges stick to judging, in other words, legis- lators must do the legislating. I think Chief Justice REHNQUIST would say that is as it should be. Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s legacy will live on in many ways. The James E. Rogers College of Law at the University [ v ] VerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE (Trim Line) (Trim Line) of Arizona has already established the William H. Rehnquist Center on the Constitutional Structures of Government. Not surprisingly, one of its three primary themes will be judicial independence. First as Associate and then as Chief Justice, WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST touched the judiciary, the country, and the law. But as a human being, he also touched many lives. In his 2000 commencement address at George Washington Univer- sity Law School, he painted a picture for the talented and ambitious graduates of a life that includes ‘‘pastimes and oc- cupations that many can enjoy simultaneously—love for an- other, being a good parent to a child, service to your commu- nity.’’ Such choices, he said, ‘‘will determine how well spent you think your life is when you look back at it.’’ The tributes contained in this book come from Members of the Senate and House, from both political parties. They tes- tify to the profound impact that WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST’s choices have had on the law and on the life of our Nation. THE HONORABLE ORRIN G. HATCH, Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary [ vi ] VerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE (Trim Line) (Trim Line) CONTENTS Page Order for Printing .................................................................................... iii Foreword ................................................................................................... v Biography .................................................................................................. ix Proceedings in the Senate: Tributes by Senators: Allen, George, of Virginia .......................................................... 57, 62 Baucus, Max, of Montana .......................................................... 50 Boxer, Barbara, of California .................................................... 24 Brownback, Sam, of Kansas ...................................................... 43 Carper, Thomas R., of Delaware ............................................... 42 Coleman, Norm, of Minnesota .................................................. 48 Conrad, Kent, of North Dakota ................................................. 27 Cornyn, John, of Texas .............................................................. 32 Corzine, Jon S., of New Jersey ................................................. 5 Craig, Larry E., of Idaho ........................................................... 42 Dayton, Mark, of Minnesota ..................................................... 47 Dole, Elizabeth, of North Carolina ........................................... 64 Durbin, Richard, of Illinois ........................................................ 19 Enzi, Michael B., of Wyoming ................................................... 29 Feingold, Russell D., of Wisconsin ............................................ 30 Frist, William H., of Tennessee ...................................... 3, 4, 6, 41, 48 Gregg, Judd, of New Hampshire ............................................... 43 Hagel, Chuck, of Nebraska ........................................................ 32, 58 Hatch, Orrin G., of Utah ........................................................... 24, 57 Hutchison, Kay Bailey, of Texas ............................................... 28 Isakson, Johnny, of Georgia ...................................................... 57 Jeffords, James M., of Vermont ................................................ 39 Kyl, Jon, of Arizona ................................................................... 35 Martinez, Mel, of Florida ........................................................... 47 McCain, John, of Arizona .......................................................... 37 McConnell, Mitch, of Kentucky ................................................. 14, 60 Murray, Patty, of Washington .................................................. 49 Obama, Barack, of Illinois ......................................................... 38 Reid, Harry, of Nevada .............................................................. 4, 12 Sessions, Jeff, of Alabama ......................................................... 20 Specter, Arlen, of Pennsylvania ................................................ 51 Stabenow, Debbie, of Michigan ................................................. 60 Stevens, Ted, of Alaska ............................................................. 17 Voinovich, George V., of Ohio ................................................... 60 Proceedings in the House of Representatives: Tributes by Representatives: Berman, Howard L., of California ............................................ 74, 80 Carter, John R., of Texas .................... 80, 86, 90, 91, 96, 97, 98, 100 Chabot, Steve, of Ohio ............................................................... 77 Coble, Howard, of North Carolina ............................................ 76 Davis, Tom, of Virginia .............................................................. 79 DeLay, Tom, of Texas ................................................................ 67, 68 Franks, Trent, of Arizona ......................................................... 83, 97 [ vii ] VerDate jan 13 2004
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Civil Justice System 50 Years of Service To
    An Association of Personal Injury Defense, Civil Trial & Commercial Litigation Attorneys - Est. 1960 COMMEMORATIVE ISSUE 50 Years of Service Civil Justi to the ce System 960 2 1 010 2010 Annual Meeting September 22-26, 2010 San Antonio, Texas HONORS TADC’S PAST PRESIDENTS 50th ANNIVERSARY Texas Association Of Defense Counsel, Inc. 1960-2010 1960-61 JOHN C. WILLIAMS, Houston (deceased) 1961-62 J.A. GOOCH, Fort Worth (deceased) 1962-63 JOHN R. FULLINGIM, Amarillo (deceased) 1963-64 PRESTON SHIRLEY, Galveston (deceased) 1964-65 MARK MARTIN, Dallas (deceased) 1965-66 TOM SEALY, Midland (deceased) 1966-67 JAMES C. WATSON, Corpus Christi (deceased) 1967-68 HOWARD G. BARKER, Fort Worth (deceased) 1968-69 W.O. SHAFER, Odessa (deceased) 1969-70 JACK HEBDON, San Antonio 1970-71 JOHN B. DANIEL, JR., Temple (deceased) 1971-72 L.S. CARSEY, Houston (deceased) 1972-73 JOHN M. LAWRENCE III, Bryan 1973-74 CLEVE BACHMAN, Beaumont (deceased) 1974-75 HILTON H. HOWELL, Waco (deceased) 1975-76 WILLIAM R. MOSS, Lubbock (deceased) 1976-77 RICHARD GRAINGER, Tyler 1977-78 WAYNE STURDIVANT, Amarillo (deceased) 1978-79 DEWEY J. GONSOULIN, Beaumont 1979-80 KLEBER C. MILLER, Fort Worth 1980-81 PAUL M. GREEN, San Antonio (deceased) 1981-82 ROYAL H. BRIN, JR., Dallas 1982-83 G. DUFFIELD SMITH, JR., Dallas (deceased) 1983-84 DAVID J. KREAGER, Beaumont (deceased) 1984-85 JOHN T. GOLDEN, Houston 1985-86 JAMES L. GALLAGHER, El Paso 1986-87 J. ROBERT SHEEHY. Waco 1987-88 J. CARLISLE DeHAY, JR., Dallas (deceased) 1988-89 JACK D. MARONEY II, Austin 1989-90 HOWARD WALDROP, Texarkana (deceased) 1990-91 JOHN H.
    [Show full text]
  • Separation of the Governmental System of Powers in This Millennium
    Separation of the Governmental System of Powers in this Millennium The U.S. government is made up of three branches: Legislative, Executive and Judiciary: Legislative: U.S. Congress. Created and maintained by the People. Its primary objective is to make laws. Executive: The Office of the President. Elected by the People by Electoral College. The President’s primary objective is to represent and lead the country, at home and around the world. The President has not the power to impose law (only rules that can be rescinded quite easily) but possesses the power to VETO laws put forth by Congress. Judiciary: The Supreme Court. Currently composed of 9 individual Justices appointed for life by the President and confirmed by the U.S Senate. Their primary objective is to interpret laws. The Supreme Court is shielded from politics so that it can maintain objectivity in its deliberations. *The President can nominate whomever he/she choses. This individual does not need to be a Judge nor does the individual even need to be a lawyer. That said, the Senate would most likely NOT confirm a person who is not perceived to have adequate experience/expertise. The Framers wrote the U.S. Constitution to ensure the health and preservation of our Democracy. Period. They also created a metric to check the President’s power that has impressively stood the test of time. That is until now. President Trump has stressed the system created to preserve our Democracy more than any single one of his 44 predecessors. Up until now, U.S. Presidents have conducted themselves by a largely unwritten code of conduct primarily outlined in the Oath they take on the steps of the Capital on Inauguration Day.
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion Assignment on the Rehnquist Court
    Opinion assignment on the Rehnquist Court Rehnquist’s opinion assignments reflected his ability to balance both the Court’s organizational needs and, occasionally, strategic policy considerations. by FORREST MALTZMAN and PAUL J. WAHLBECK ARTVILLE hen William H. Rehnquist replaced Warren E. completed their work efficiently.4 Rehnquist’s preference Burger as chief justice in 1986, administration for allowing the Court’s administrative needs to guide his Wof the Supreme Court changed markedly. In his opinion assignments was especially pronounced as the 17 years on the job, Chief Justice Burger was reputed to end of the term approached. act strategically to advance his policy objectives. Critics Our account certainly comports with Rehnquist’s own complained that he cast “phony votes” and manipulated description of the factors he weighed in making assign- the assignment of opinions to his brethren.1 For exam- ments: “I tried to be as evenhanded as possible as far as ple, Justice William O. Douglas charged the chief with numbers of cases assigned to each justice, but as the term attempting to “bend the Court to his will by manipulating goes on I take into consid- NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY assignments” when Chief Justice Burger assigned the task eration the extent to of writing the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade to his col- which the various justices league, fellow Nixon appointee Harry A. Blackman.2 are current in writing and As chief justice, Rehnquist claimed that he approached the task of opinion assignment in a strikingly different manner. “This is an important responsibility,” Rehnquist Justice Harry A. Blackmun, whose papers contain once observed, “and it is desirable that it be discharged 3 the assignment sheets carefully and fairly.” Quantitative analysis of patterns in that the chief justice Rehnquist’s assignment of opinions confirms that he circulated at the close of administered this task largely consistent with the goal of every oral argument.
    [Show full text]
  • Clerk and Justice: the Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by OpenCommons at University of Connecticut University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Connecticut Law Review School of Law 2008 Clerk and Justice: The Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B. Rutledge Laura Krugman Ray Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review Recommended Citation Ray, Laura Krugman, "Clerk and Justice: The Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B. Rutledge" (2008). Connecticut Law Review. 5. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/5 CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 41 NOVEMBER 2008 NUMBER 1 Article Clerk and Justice: The Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B. Rutledge LAURA KRUGMAN RAY Justice John Paul Stevens, now starting his thirty-third full term on the Supreme Court, served as law clerk to Justice Wiley B. Rutledge during the Court’s 1947 Term. That experience has informed both elements of Stevens’s jurisprudence and aspects of his approach to his institutional role. Like Rutledge, Stevens has written powerful opinions on issues of individual rights, the Establishment Clause, and the reach of executive power in wartime. Stevens has also, like Rutledge, been a frequent author of dissents and concurrences, choosing to express his divergences from the majority rather than to vote in silence. Within his chambers, Stevens has in many ways adopted his own clerkship experience in preference to current models. Unlike the practices of most of his colleagues, Stevens hires fewer clerks, writes his own first drafts, and shares certiorari decisionmaking with his clerks.
    [Show full text]
  • Sanct. That the Principal of Equality of Justice for All Has T
    223 We are saying that there are certain things that should be sacro- sanct. That the principal of equality of justice for all has to have meaning, and that indeed, people who have views on individual rights and on sex discrimination, that put in question our whole records on how to end discrimination in affirmative action, should not be confirmed, because all we will be doing is reliving the bat- tles of the 1950's and the 1960's again and again, and it is enough. Senator BIDEN. Thank you. Senator MATHIAS. Once again, I think, for the second time, I thank you for your attendance at this hearing Mr. GOLD. And thank you for your patience, Senator. Senator MATHIAS [continuing]. And your very helpful comments. We appreciate it. Mr. RAUH. Thank you, sir. Senator BIDEN. Thank you all. Senator MATHIAS. May I inquire if Mr. Roy C. Jones of the Liber- ty Federation is in the room? Is Mr. Jones in the room? [No response.] Senator MATHIAS. Then our third panel will be composed of Mrs. LaHaye, the president of Concerned Women for America; Mr. Bruce Fein of United Families Foundation; Miss Sally Katzen, a lawyer with Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering; and Mr. Jack Fuller, the editorial editor of the Chicago Tribune. If you will all raise your right hands. Do you swear that the tes- timony you will give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mrs. LAHAYE. I do. Mr. FEIN. I do. Ms. KATZEN. I do.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice John Paul Stevens Retires from the Bench
    VOLUME XXXII NUMBER 2, 2010 JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS RETIRES FROM THE BENCH On Monday, June 29, 2010, Justice John Paul Stevens Justice Stevens was raised in Chicago by an influential sat in a formal session of Court for the last time as an active family that operated the Stevens Hotel. At the time, that hotel member of the Supreme Court of the United States. He an- was the largest in the world, boasting 3,000 rooms. nounced on April 9, 2010 his intention to resign in a letter Justice Stevens attended the University of Chicago and to the President. Justice Stevens wrote: “Having concluded then the Northwestern University School of Law. As with that it would be in the best interests of the Court to have my many of his generation, his education was interrupted by successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the service in the Navy during World War II. When speaking of commencement of the Court’s Photo credit—Photo by Steve Petteway his military experience, Ste- Next Term, I shall retire from vens is fond of reporting that regular active service as an he joined the Navy on Dec. Associate Justice . effec- 6, 1941. “I’m sure you know tive the next day after the how the enemy responded Court rises for the summer the following day,” he quips, recess this year.” His resigna- alluding to the attack at Pearl tion had been anticipated for Harbor that took place on some time following unof- December 7, 1941. Like his ficial comments he made and previous colleague Lewis F.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court of the United States
    The Supreme Court of the United States Hearings and Reports on the Successful and Unsuccessful Nominations Now Includes the Kavanaugh and Preliminary Barrett Volumes! This online set contains all existing Senate documents for 1916 to date, as a result of the hearings and subsequent hearings on Supreme Court nominations� Included in the volumes are hearings never before made public! The series began with three volumes devoted to the controversial confirmation of Louis Brandeis, the first nominee subject to public hearings. The most recent complete volumes cover Justice Kavanaugh. After two years, the Judiciary Committee had finally released Kavanaugh’s nomination hearings, so we’ve been able to complete the online volumes� The material generated by Kavanaugh’s nomination was so voluminous that it takes up 8 volumes� The definitive documentary history of the nominations and confirmation process, this ongoing series covers both successful and unsuccessful nominations� As a measure of its importance, it is now consulted by staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee as nominees are considered� Check your holdings and complete your print set! Volume 27 (1 volume) 2021 Amy Coney Barrett �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Online Only Volume 26 (8 volumes) - 2021 Brett Kavanaugh ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Online Only Volume 25 (2 books) - 2018 Neil M� Gorsuch ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������$380�00
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Sandra Day O'connor: the World's Most Powerful Jurist?
    JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR: THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL JURIST? DIANE LOWENTHAL AND BARBARA PALMER* I. INTRODUCTION Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been called a "major force on [the] Supreme Court,"' the "real" Chief Justice, 2 and "America's most powerful jurist."' 3 Others have referred to her as "the most 5 powerful woman in America" 4 and even of "the world.", Even compared to women like Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton, there is no one "who has had a more profound effect on society than any other American woman... If someone else had been appointed to her position on the court, our nation might now be living under different rules for abortion, affirmative action, race, religion in school and civil rights. We might well have a different president." 6 Former Acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger noted, "What is most striking is the assurance with which this formerly obscure state court judge effectively decides many hugely important questions for a country of 275 million people.",7 As one journalist put it, "We are all living in * Diane Lowenthal, Ph.D. in Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University and Barbara Palmer, Ph.D. in Political Science, University of Minnesota, are assistant professors in American University's Washington Semester Program. The authors would like to thank their undergraduate research assistants, Amy Bauman, Nick Chapman-Hushek, and Amanda White. This paper was presented at October 28, 2004 Town Hall The Sway of the Swing Vote: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Her Influence on Issues of Race, Religion, Gender and Class sponsored by the University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class and the Women, Leadership and Equality Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Facets of Texas Legal History
    SMU Law Review Volume 52 Issue 4 Article 9 1999 Facets of Texas Legal History Frances Spears Cloyd Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Frances Spears Cloyd, Facets of Texas Legal History, 52 SMU L. REV. 1653 (1999) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol52/iss4/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. FACETS OF TEXAS LEGAL HISTORY Frances Spears Cloyd* OR three hundred years Spain ruled vast areas in the Western hemisphere. She regarded these colonial possessions as being en- tirely the King's, for his use and benefit. She exploited them for royal profit through a tight trade monopoly and extended her laws into them. Her domination was approaching an end when the Anglo-Ameri- cans began to come into Texas. Moses Austin got permission from the Spanish government to take a colony into Texas in 1821. He died before he was able to complete his project and bequeathed the responsibility to his son, Stephen. In this same year Mexico and Spain were clashing. Iturbide led a pow- erful liberal movement based on unity of all classes, independence under a Bourbon prince with power limited by a constitution, and protection of the Catholic Church. Mexico proclaimed her independence from Spain and proceeded to the drafting of an extremely complex constitution.' It was completed and promulgated in 1824.
    [Show full text]
  • Property and the Roberts Court
    Property and the Roberts Court John G. Sprankling I. INTRODUCTION How do property owners fare before the Roberts Court? Quite well. Owners prevail in 86% of civil property-related disputes with government entities.1 But this statistic does not tell the whole story. This Article demonstrates that under the leadership of Chief Justice Roberts the Court has expanded the constitutional and statutory protections afforded to owners to a greater extent than any prior Court. It analyzes the key trends in the Court’s jurisprudence that will shape its decisions on property issues in future decades. Almost 100 years ago, Justice Holmes remarked that government regulation of property which went “too far” would be unconstitutional; yet the precise line between permissible and impermissible action has never been drawn.2 The issue has generated debate through much of American history, particularly in recent decades as the influence of conservative ideology on the Supreme Court has expanded. The Burger and Rehnquist Courts were broadly viewed as more sympathetic to private property than the Warren Court had been. However, the most controversial anti-owner decision of the modern era, Kelo v. City of New London,3 was decided in the final year of the Rehnquist Court. In Kelo, the Court held that the city was empowered to condemn owner-occupied homes and transfer them to private developers as part of an economic redevelopment project4―a ruling that ignited a firestorm of protest across the nation. In his confirmation hearings to serve as Chief Justice, John Roberts pledged to act as an “umpire” on the Court, a person with “no agenda” Distinguished Professor of Law, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court and Its Shrinking Docket: the Ghost of William Howard Taft
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 2006 The uprS eme Court and Its Shrinking Docket: The Ghost of William Howard Taft Kenneth W. Starr Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Starr, Kenneth W., "The uS preme Court and Its Shrinking Docket: The Ghost of William Howard Taft" (2006). Minnesota Law Review. 32. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/32 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARR_3FMT 05/17/2006 09:15:32 AM Essay The Supreme Court and Its Shrinking Docket: The Ghost of William Howard Taft Kenneth W. Starr† William Howard Taft genially served as the tenth Chief Justice of the United States.1 His career was of breathtaking variety. Younger even than current Solicitor General Paul Clement, the buoyant Solicitor General Taft delivered “speech” after “speech” in the Supreme Court in the late nineteenth cen- tury. Little did he suspect, one might safely surmise, that one day—after an intervening tour of duty as President of the United States—he would occupy the center chair itself and lis- ten to his successors (many times removed) delivering their “speeches” to the Court in the old English style. In those hal- cyon, or at least less hurried, days, lawyers were allowed abun- dant time to present their case, educate the Justices, and per- haps even persuade the Court by the force of oral advocacy.2 Those were also the days when the Court was duty-bound to decide the lion’s share of the cases that came before it.3 The † Dean, Pepperdine University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rehnquist Court and Beyond: Revolution, Counter-Revolution, Or Mere Chastening of Constitutional Aspirations?
    THE REHNQUIST COURT AND BEYOND: REVOLUTION, COUNTER-REVOLUTION, OR MERE CHASTENING OF CONSTITUTIONAL ASPIRATIONS? THE PROCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: FROM PARTISAN ENTRENCHMENT TO THE NATIONAL SURVEILLANCE STATE Jack M. Balkin & Sanford Levinson* I. INTRODUCTION: PARTISAN ENTRENCHMENT Five years ago, we offered a theory of how constitutional change and constitutional revolutions occurred, which we called the theory of “partisan entrenchment.”1 Much has happened in the subsequent half-decade, and we are grateful for this opportunity to offer an update of our thoughts, together with some amendments to our initial formulation. By far the most important amendment is to draw out in more detail how the development of constitutional doctrine by courts occurs within the broader framework of changes in constitutional regimes, which include changes in institutions, legislation, and administrative regulation. The forces of democratic politics drive these regime changes, and the major actors are not courts but the political branches. Although courts may initially resist these changes, in the long run, they cooperate with them, shape their contours, and legitimate them through the development of constitutional doctrine. In the second half of this essay, we describe an emerging regime of institutions and practices that we call the “National Surveillance State,” which, we think, represents the major constitutional development of our era. The National Surveillance State responds to the particular needs of warfare, foreign policy, and domestic law enforcement in the twenty-first century. That such a state is emerging has become clear in the wake of 9/11 and debates about the War on Terror. However, it is not limited to the * Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment, Yale Law School.
    [Show full text]