William Rehnquist

Conflict Between Presidents And Chief Justices Quite Common Historically

Ronald Leave a comment

It is well known that President Barack Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts do not have a warm relationship, with Roberts chosen by George W. Bush, with Obama voting against his confirmation, and with the two men having totally different ideological views. Despite that, and the annoyance of Roberts over Obama’s condemnation of the Supreme Court for the Citizens United case of 2010, Roberts saved “ObamaCare” in June 2012, legitimizing it for the future, and gaining the anger of Republicans and conservatives. Who can say for sure how the relationship between Obama and Roberts will develop in the second term, and whether Roberts will surprise with more support of the administration than just the health care issue?

But the fact of their antagonism is not new in American history, as it is actually quite common that the Chief Justice is picked by a President of one ideological view, and will often clash with a future President of another party during his tenure on the Court.

The examples of such antagonism, far worse than the Obama-Roberts relationship, follow:

Thomas Jefferson and Chief Justice John Marshall (appointed by John Adams), on the Marbury V Madison case of 1803, dealing with Judicial Review. They were also distant cousins, who personally disliked each other.

Andrew Jackson and Chief Justice John Marshall (appointed by John Adams), on the removal of the Cherokee and other Indian Tribes after the Worcester V. Georgia and other similar cases in the 1830s.

Abraham Lincoln and Chief Justice Roger Taney (appointed by Andrew Jackson), over the Dred Scott V Sanford case in 1857, and the President’s use of war powers during the Civil War years until Taney’s death in 1864.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes (appointed by Herbert Hoover), over Supreme Court decisions during the New Deal years, and specifically FDR’s Court “Packing” Plan in 1937.

Richard Nixon and Chief Justice Earl Warren (appointed by Dwight D. Eisenhower), who Nixon had criticized in earlier years, and were rivals in California politics,and Warren trying to leave office under Lyndon B. Johnson, so Nixon would not replace him, but unable to do so due to controversy over Johnson’s nomination of Associate Justice Abe Fortas in 1968, leading to rejection, and Warren’s replacement, Warren Burger, being chosen by Nixon in 1969.

Bill Clinton and Chief Justice William Rehnquist (appointed by Ronald Reagan), who had major disagreements on policy, but Rehnquist conducted himself well at the Bill Clinton Impeachment Trial in 1999.

So the antagonism and rivalry of Presidents and Chief Justices is nothing new!

Roe V. Wade Almost 40 Years Later Still Debated, But Five Of Seven Justices In Majority Were Appointed By Republican Presidents Eisenhower And Nixon!

Ronald Leave a comment

In the midst of the heated debate about abortion rights, rape, Todd Akin, Mitt Romney, and the Republican Party platform which bans ALL abortions, whether rape, incest, or life of the mother, something very significant has been ignored!

The Roe V. Wade case of January 22, 1973 was decided by a 7-2 vote, with FIVE of the seven Justices in the majority being appointed by Republican Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon!

That was an era when Republicans could be in the mainstream, supporting voting rights legislation by vast majorities in Congress, but now 40-50 years later, leading the charge to do everything possible to repeal the legislation, or deny many categories of voters their basic human right to vote.

That was, also, a time of mainstream Republican Justices supporting a woman’s right to privacy with her own body, exactly the opposite of what is happening 40 years later in the Republican Party!

The Republican appointments who supported Roe V. Wade in 1973 were:

William Brennan, appointed by Eisehower
Potter Stewart, appointed by Eisenhower
Chief Justice Warren Burger, appointed by Nixon
Harry Blackmun, author of the decision, appointed by Nixon
Lewis Powell, appointed by Nixon

Two Democratic appointments, William O. Douglas (appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt), and Thurgood Marshall (appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson), joined the five Republicans, with only one Democratic appointment (Byron White, appointed by John F. Kennedy), and one Republican, (William Rehnquist, appointed by Nixon) being in the minority.

How far the Republican Party has wandered from the mainstream of American politics over the past 40-50 years, and the only answer is a sound defeat of the right wing, and bringing the GOP back to the mainstream, or else they will become part of the dustbin of history, being replaced by a centrist party that resembles the proud history of the earlier Republican Party, which understood that an alliance with religion is poisonous to tolerance and the mainstream of American politics!

What Might Have Been: Chief Justice Samuel Alito!

Ronald Leave a comment

In Jully 2005, shortly after Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement, President George W. Bush announced John Roberts as his choice as her replacement on the Supreme Court.

The hearings were scheduled for early September, but two days before the hearings began, Chief Justice William Rehnquist died, and overnight, Bush decided to switch Roberts to be the appointee for Chief Justice, and later selected Samuel Alito to replace O’Connor!

The course of history was changed dramatically by this, ever more so now after Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion on the Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare!

Samuel Alito has proved to be a right wing extremist on the Supreme Court, joining with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and often called “Scalito” by critics. He also is the Justice who mouthed “not true” after the CItizens United Case decision, when President Obama, in the State of the Union speech a few days later, openly criticized that decision to the faces of the Supreme Court, while the other Justices, including Roberts, sat stone faced, which was the professional way to behave, but not for Alito!

The leader of the Court knows the Court is in his name, and that he must think of history, and Chief Justice Roberts knows that well, and has shown his statesmanship on this health care case, realizing no major decision of the Court since 1937 has repudiated a major social reform law passed by Congress.

Justice Alito is NOT a statesman, far from it, and rather is in many ways a disgrace–a narrow minded, hostile, nasty representative of the agenda of the Far Right, who if he had any ethics, would resign from the Court, but preceded by Scalia and Thomas, the two worst Justices of the past half century on the Court!

The Supreme Court: Most Important Issue Of Presidential Campaign Of 2012

Ronald 2 Comments

It is amazing how little this Presidential campaign of 2012 has been connected to foreign policy, and to constitutional law, as if ONLY the economy matters.

As much as the Great Recession and its supposed aftermath has created a major crisis for Americans, to overemphasize it is a dangerous action, as the LONG RANGE problem is much more our relations with the world AND the future of our judiciary.

Regarding the judiciary, the thought that a Republican President would select MORE conservatives to a Court already top heavy with conservatives is absolutely terrifying on issues such as the power and influence of corporations, the rights of women, the rights of gays, the role of religion in government, and the struggle to preserve civil rights and civil liberties.

For instance, if Michael Dukakis had been elected in 1988 instead of George H. W. Bush, we would not have had Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.

If John Kerry had been elected President in 2004, instead of George W. Bush, we would not have had John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

Going further back, if Walter Mondale had defeated Ronald Reagan in 1984, we would not have had Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, and Justice William Rehnquist would not have become Chief Justice.

So the election of the President has LONG TERM consequences in judicial and constitutional interpretation, just as much as foreign policy is not only short term, but long range affecting.

When one realizes that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 78, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are 75, it seems realistic to believe that all three COULD be out of office in the next term of office.

So the Court could become more conservative if a Republican is elected to the Presidency, and more moderate if Barack Obama is elected to a second term in the White House.

Therefore, every voter MUST realize that the Presidential election has consequences, not only in foreign policy long term, but also in the future of our legal system and our constitutional rights.

The Roberts Supreme Court: Back To The Gilded Age And The 1920s! :(

Ronald Leave a comment

New evidence is now available indicating that the Supreme Court headed by John Roberts, the 17th Chief Justice, since 2005, has become the most pro business Supreme Court since the 1920s and the earlier Gilded Age, both periods in which corporations were given license to run amuck over small business, labor, and consumers in their mad dash for maximum profits and exploitation! 🙁

The Citizens United case in January, allowing unlimited corporate contributions in political campaigns, upending a century of regulatory laws on that subject, is just the most obvious case.

But with a five member majority, with two appointments by Ronald Reagan, one by father George H W Bush and two by son George W. Bush, the Supreme Court now has demonstrated that 61 percent of the time, they favor big business, as compared to 46 percent in the last five years under Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and 42 percent in all the years since Earl Warren became Chief Justice in 1953.

The Chamber of Commerce and other business groups have been able to get a sympathetic ear from the Supreme Court in greater percentages as the years go by, and this is another troubling piece of evidence, shown by many legal scholarly analyses, that the concept of “an equal day in court” for everyone is really a myth! 🙁

What is emerging is the disturbing reality of a growing oligarchy which wins the day in the courts and in the Congress so often that the idea of a “land of opportunity” and the “American dream” is more than ever, for almost everyone, except a small elite, a total distortion of reality! 🙁

Elena Kagan Confirmed As Associate Justice Of Supreme Court!

Ronald Leave a comment

Solicitor General and former Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan was confirmed today by a vote of 63-37 to be the newest Associate Justice of the Supreme Court!

Kagan became the fourth woman in the Court’s history, and the second appointment of President Obama! She also became the first non judicial experience member of the Court since William Rehnquist!

She received the support of all Democrats, except Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson! She also received the backing of only five Republicans–Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, Judd Gregg, Lindsey Graham, and Richard Lugar, as compared to the nine Republicans who backed Sonia Sotomayor last year (who won her seat by a margin of 68-32)!

Kagan can be seen as a worthy successor to John Paul Stevens, who served the fourth longest time on the Supreme Court, and she inherits a seat not only occupied by Stevens, but earlier by William O. Douglas (longest serving Justice in history) and Louis Brandeis (often considered the number one or two Supreme Court Justice in history)!