Cross post from my blog. You guys seem to get good mileage out of these...
Posted at 9/7/2005 8:50 am : Rehnquist’s death this week, followed by Bush’s elevation of John Roberts from Associate Justice nominee to Chief Justice Nominee started a number of conversations amongst myself and my peer group which should really be committed to some more permanent media.
Of paramount concern is the stature of John Roberts versus that of his predecessor. Roberts’ history is very short, and remarkably uncelebrated for a Supreme Court nominee, let alone Chief Justice. Roberts has served on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. He has served in the office of the White House Counsel, and worked for 14 years in private practice. Over his terms as a judge, he has authored some 40 opinions.
Rehnquist, by comparison, has a storied history. As early as 1951, barely out of law school, Rehnquist authored a controversial memo defending the indefensible position of segregation. Rehnquist’s arguments in this memo stemmed from the fundamental precepts of the American Judicial System, which ultimately was (rightly) usurped by the Brown v. Board case. His dispassionate view of the law, even at this early age, earned him notoriety, though also some degree of scorn.
Rehnquist served as a legal adviser to the Berry Goldwater campaign, Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel, and the chief lawyer to then Attorney General John Mitchell. He was well enough placed during the Nixon Administration to draw speculation that he may have been Deep Throat.
The significance of these different backgrounds is complex. First and foremost, the Supreme Court should consist of the nine most brilliant legal minds of our time. Of course, this is often not the case, but an effort should be made. Roberts represents the paragon of mediocrity, not the towering intellect that should be entrusted with the leadership of the most powerful Court in the country.
Secondly, the relevance of the Court itself is called into question. Many have argued that the Court maintains political significance and credibility because it spans generations. Americans think of the Court as being contiguous from John Marshall (John Jay if you’re a historian) forward to the present day. Because of this, the Court has relevance as an institution first and as a collection of individuals second. However, the Court’s credibility is limited to that of its spokesman – often the Chief Justice. Roberts’ nomination and possible confirmation stands likely to diminish the relevance of the Court in the coming years – particularly with respect to the issues facing the Bush administration this year.
John Roberts
Moderator: EG Members
