#rehnquist

[democratz]

Discrimination, or in this case outright violence, has a huge downstream effect on the economy. A bipartisan congress concluded that gender based violence substantially effects the national economy. Gender based violence, and the fear of that discriminatory violence, deters women's travel interstate, restricts women's choice of jobs and women's ability to perform those jobs, reduces national productivity, and increases medical and other costs.

Christy Brzonkala vs Antonio Morrison; evidence that every year gender based violence costs the USA billions of dollars

[princevonliechtenstein-blog]

Remember when the Sebelius opinion was delivered, and everyone thought at first that it struck down the ACA individual mandate?

That wouldn’t have happened if all justices wrote like Rehnquist did. Just sayin.

[princevonliechtenstein-blog]

Congressional bullying of states really shouldn’t be tolerated

Read South Dakota v Dole today, which, as it turns out, is the case about drinking ages and interstate highway funds. It’s the one I like to vaguely reference when complaining about federal overreach, but now I’ve actually read it so my opinions aren’t just bs.

The 21st Amendment specifically says that the States, not Congress, have the power to regulate alcohol. But Congress thought they could use the power of the purse to indirectly enforce a drinking age.

Indirect regulation is a bad thing. The States have broad governing power. Congress’s powers, as given in the Constitution, are narrow. They are nevertheless extremely potent. If they can be used to bully the states, Congress can extend their reach beyond the intended boundaries. 

The Constitution limits what the US can do, not just how they can do it. The 21st Amendment makes it pretty clear that regulating alcohol is not something Congress can do. Indirect regulation is still regulation.

SO to Brennan and O’Connor, for actually reading the 21st amendment. I can’t help but think that if Thomas was on the court at the time, he would have dissented too.

[princevonliechtenstein-blog]

Scalia’s position was uncomfortably political

Right-wing people don’t want to legalize marijuana, left-wing people do. I’m disappointed that Scalia took the “conservative” stance, rather than the “small government” stance. He’s a great writer, but I think Ben Shapiro is right: Thomas is more legalistically consistent.

(Shout out to Rehnquist and O’Connor, though, for dissenting)

[princevonliechtenstein-blog]

U.S. v. Lopez

Finally we got to a case where the SCOTUS was right. Basically, in 1990 Congress tried to ban all guns on school zones. Under what authority? Why, the interstate commerce clause, of course! You see, children, education affects commerce. So OBVIOUSLY that means we can forbid things that are bad for your education.

Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion, which can be summed up as “that’s stupid and you’re wrong.” Just because something has a butterfly-effect on commerce between the states doesn’t mean the US government has absolute power over it.

Somehow, Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg managed to disagree with that assessment. It dumbfounds me that they seem to think the Constitution is not a limiting document. Anything they like, they will find a way to agree with. Using “muh commerce clause” as intellectual camouflage for enforcing policies they like is the very antithesis of judicial impartiality.

But I digress. The majority opinion is the one with legal weight, and they got it right. Rehnquist writes with refreshing clarity, stating the decision within the first paragraph. He relies too much on precedent, and he’s not as entertaining as Scalia, but I enjoy his writing.

[guiteaux]

10 Years Ago Today: Death of Supreme Court Chief Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist (October 1, 1924 – September 3, 2005)

Appointed to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon in 1972 and appointed as the 16th Chief Justice by Ronald Reagan in 1986, William Rehnquist was a conservative justice who favored federalism and opposed the previous expansion of federal power under the Warren Court.  During his early years on the Court, he was frequently the sole dissenter in cases, which earned him the nickname “The Lone Ranger”.  After serving as Chief Justice for nearly 19 years, he passed away at the age 80 from thyroid cancer. Rehnquist’s funeral took place on September 6, 2005 with eulogies from President George W. Bush and fellow Justice Sandra Day O’Connor before he was buried in Arlington National Cemetery.  John Roberts succeeded him as Chief Justice and was sworn in on September 29, 2005.

[justicescalia]

I remember my first day on the job at the Supreme Court. My wife gave me a big smooch on the cheek, as I left the house. I showed up, rather confident. I made my way down the halls of the building, until I finally got to the courtroom. I waltzed up to the bench and plopped down my briefcase. All was well until I looked at my colleagues, and realized I was wearing the wrong type of robe! I was wearing my plush Italian flag BATHROBE from Old Navy. Boy was I embarrassed. I'll never forget the look Chief Justice Rehnquist gave me. He just said “Oh Antonin, you’ve really done it this time!” To this day, I’ve never made the same mistake.

[guiteaux]

Rehnquist was always comfortable being the solitary dissenter on the Court.  He actually felt less burdened by his weighty office than most of his brethren.  Among the other justices there was reverence for something called stare decisis, a Latinism denoting the sanctity of precedent.  But Rehnquist felt no obligation to it.  He voted as he wished in cases, and he made it plain whenever he thought prior decisions were wrong and should be overturned.  So frequently was he the only dissenter among the nine justices that his law clerks in 1974 presented him with a small Lone Ranger doll that he put proudly on the mantel above his office fireplace.

The Partisan: The Life of William Rehnquist by John A. Jenkins