William Rehnquist

Supreme Court Could Be Repealing The 20th Century In Challenge To 1984 Chevron Case Decision

admin Leave a comment

Conservative right wing groups are now attempting to repeal the 20th century concept of federal government regulation of the environment, financial markets, public health, and the workplace, in a challenge to the Chevron USA vs National Resources Defense Council case of 1984, decided by a unanimmous 6 member court of Republicans and conservatives.

The decision was written by Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, and agreed with by Chief Justice Warren Burger, and Associate Justices William Brennan, Lewis Powell, Harry Blackmun, and Byron White. All but White were appointed by Republican Presidents. And three Justices did not participate, Sandra Day O’Connor, William Rehnquist, and Thurgood Marshall, with only Marshall appointed by a Democratic President.

So the Court of 1984 had SEVEN Republican appointments, but reasonable Justices, as compared to the present Supreme Court of six Republican appointments.

So the case now being considered is an attempt to wipe out the federal regulatory state–in effect wiping out the Progressive Era of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson; the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt and followup by Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy; the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson, and followup by Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton; and the commitment to further reforms by Barack Obama and Joe Biden! Notice that Richard Nixon is included with this list of Democratic Presidents who promoted federal regulation and reforms, the one Republican, who despite his shortcomings, actually added to federal regulation!

We are at a turning point, where our federal government could be weakened and go back as far as the Gilded Age of the late 19th century by an extremist Supreme Court. This is a constitutional crisis of massive proportions, and puts American democracy at risk!

50 Years Since Roe V Wade: The Battle Is Not Over, And Must Continue!

Ronald Leave a comment

Today marks the 50th Anniversary of the Roe V Wade Abortion Rights decision, written by a 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court, including five Republican appointments to the Court, including the author of the opinion, Associate Justice Harry Blackmun (appointed by Richard Nixon). Chief Justice Warren Burger, and Associate Justices William Brennan, Potter Stewart, and Lewis Powell joined the majority, along with Democratic appointments William O. Douglas and Thurgood Marshall. The only dissenters were Democratic appointment Byron White and Republican William Rehnquist.

After a half century, one would have thought that the right of a woman to control her own health care, and her body, would have been clearly permanent law.

But, instead, the extremist right wing Supreme Court, with appointees of George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump, by a 6-3 vote eviscerated abortion rights in Dobbs V Jackson Women’s Health Organization, on June 24, 2022.

This caused nationwide reaction, leading to six states insuring the right of abortion by vote of the people of those states, and defeat of extremist anti abortion candidates for Governor and other state wide executive offices in many states by the time of the Midterm Elections of 2022.

But the anti abortion extremists are now out to create a nationwide ban on abortion, which, if the Republicans win the US Senate and the White House in the 2024 elections, could be a reality!

This has been a 50 year effort by so called “Pro Life” forces, which want to impose their personal and religious views on the entire population of the United States, including young girls who should not be having children before adulthood, and also undermines the basic physical and mental health of women, without any concern of the impact.

So the battle for individual freedom must go on, with no relenting on the issue!

Supreme Court Once Again Stands Up To Presidential Assertion Of Executive Privilege, And Limits It!

Ronald 3 Comments

The Supreme Court of the United States for the third time in 48 years has stood up to a President who asserted “Executive Privilege”, and was smacked down by a court including members appointed by the President who was involved in the Court case.

First, we had US V Nixon in July 1974, having to do with Richard Nixon and the Watergate tapes, which the Court unanimously, 8-0, ordered them handed over to the Watergate Special Prosecutor and the House Judiciary Committee. This led within weeks to the resignation of Richard Nixon. Associate Justice William Rehnquist recused himself from the case, appropriately, as he had worked earlier in the Nixon Justice Department, but the other three Nixon appointees, Chief Justice Warren Burger, and Associate Justices Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell, joined the unanimous decision.

Next, we had Clinton V Jones, 1997, which involved the issue of whether Bill Clinton could be required to testify in a civil trial while in office, a case brought by Paula Jones against Governor Clinton for sexual harrassment. The Court unanimously, 9-0, including his two appointees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, ruled that he had to give testimony, and this helped to lead to his impeachment in 1998. So there was no immunity from civil law litigation for acts done before taking office, and unrelated to the office.

And now, we have Trump V Thompson, a lawsuit brought by Donald Trump against the January 6 House Committee investigation of the January 6, 2021 Insurrection, in the name of Chairman Bennie Thompson. So documents to show the series of events leading to the Insurrection are now to be made available to the House committee, as it investigates the wrong doing of the 45th President. This is a major victory, and all three Trump Supreme Court nominees—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—voted with the majority 8-1, with only Clarence Thomas in oppostion.

This is a conflict of interest by Thomas, who should have recused himself, as William Rehnquist did in the Nixon case. Since Thomas’s wife was involved in the planning of the January 6 Insurrection, encouraging lawlessness, this should be grounds for removal of Clarence Thomas from the Supreme Court, highly unlikely, but would be appropriate!

Supreme Court Longevity An Issue, As Recent Justices Have Stayed Much Longer Than Average, Including Contested Nominee Clarence Thomas

Ronald Leave a comment

In the midst of the controversy over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is the reality of how long he might serve.

There has been a trend whereby recent Supreme Court Justices serve much longer than historically traditional.

Right now, contested Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who was confirmed in 1991 despite strong testimony of Anita Hill, has served 27 years on the Court, and is already number 24 in longevity of service out of 113 members of the Court in American history. He will be number 17 in two years and number 13 in four years. In May 2028, he would break the all time record of 36 years and nearly 7 months of Justice William O. Douglas, and Thomas would be just about a month short of age 80, and can be seen as likely, if he stays healthy, to accomplish this goal.

If one just looks at the top fourth of all Supreme Court Justices in longevity, a total of 31 out of 113, all 24 years or more of service, we find the following recent Justices, all appointed since the 1950s, are on the list:

John Paul Stevens
William Brennan
William Rehnquist
Byron White
Anthony Kennedy
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Sandra Day O’Connor
Harry Blackmun
Stephen Breyer
Thurgood Marshall

In the earlier history of the Supreme Court, the average length of service was about 15 years by comparison.

That is why the idea, proposed by this author two days ago, that a future Supreme Court Justice be limited to an 18 year term, allows for turnover, and prevents dominance by an ideological minority for decades, as now is threatened by Brett Kavanaugh, or another extreme right wing appointment by Donald Trump.

The Record And Views Of Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Could Determine Constitutional Law To 2050!

Ronald Leave a comment

Tomorrow, the contentious hearings on the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will begin in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

These will be the most controversial set of hearings since 1987 and Robert Bork, and 1991, with Clarence Thomas.

On both of those occasions, the Democrats controlled the Senate, and Bork was rejected by a vote of 58-42, while Thomas was confirmed by a vote of 52-48.

The effect of Justice Clarence Thomas for the past 27 years has been profound, with many future potential Circuit Court or Supreme Court candidates having clerked for him.

Thomas has been trying to take us back to the Articles of Confederation in many ways, but also admiring Presidential power at the same time.

This is the danger of Brett Kavanaugh, that he would take America domestically back to the Gilded Age, wiping out the New Deal, Great Society, and everything Barack Obama changed.

He comes across on the surface as a pleasant, nice man, but it is all very misleading.

This is a man who worked for Ken Starr in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and now Kavanaugh has changed his view of Presidential power 180 degrees.

This is a man who worked in the White House for George W. Bush, and helped to plan the idea of an anti gay marriage amendment, that was part of the campaign of Bush in 2004. And now, Donald Trump has used executive privilege to prevent 100,000 documents from Kavanaugh’s time in the Bush White House from being made available, which is another controversy now created, as why should the Senate be unable to examine all pertinent material about a nominee?

This is a man who worked to deny September 11 victims the ability to sue for damages, limiting unsuccessfully that intent.

This is a man who in his Circuit Court decisions has come out against abortion rights, against ObamaCare, against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, against labor union rights, and willing to support limitations on voting rights.

This is a man who might be able to vote on whether Donald Trump can be indicted or prosecuted, and should recuse himself on any such matters as a conflict of interest, but likely will not do so. Justice William Rehnquist, when new on the Court as an Associate Justice, recused himself from the US Vs. Richard Nixon case in 1974 (after which Richard Nixon resigned), because Rehnquist had worked in the Justice Department under Nixon. So that famous and significant case was 8-0, not 9-0 or 8-1, and at the least, a Justice Kavanaugh should recuse himself from any case involving possible legal action against Donald Trump.

Kavanaugh could affect future decisions on campaign finance, climate change, election gerrymandering, and travel bans, and regulation of guns.

He would also create a right wing conservative Court, unlike any since 85 years ago.

And being only 53, he could be on the Supreme Court until 2050, when he would reach 85 years of age.

This would be the most long range effect of Donald Trump, no matter how much longer he remains in the Presidency, along with the 26 and more Circuit Court confirmations already accomplished by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, along with Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The Democrats’ only hope would be IF all 49 Democrats hold fast (highly unlikely); Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowksi (both pro choice on abortion) abandoning the party ties on this vote (highly unlikely); and the person who replaces John McCain in the Senate (maybe Cindy McCain) joining the two women Republican Senators in voting against Kavanaugh (highly unlikely).

44 Years Of Republican Supreme Court Majority Comes To An End With Death Of Justice Antonin Scalia!

Ronald 5 Comments

The death of the most right wing Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, in modern American history, offers Barack Obama and the Democrats a real opportunity to transform the majority of the Supreme Court, which has been with a Republican appointed majority for the last 44 years!

With the appointment and confirmation of Justices William Rehnquist and Lewis F. Powell, Jr. by Richard Nixon in January 1972, the beginning of the fourth year of his Presidency, we have had a Republican appointed majority, and the Democrats have only had a total of four appointments to the Court, as compared to the nine that the Republicans have had.

With nearly a full year until the next Presidential inauguration, there is no excuse for the Republicans to filibuster or to dismiss an appointment without just cause, and the Republicans are playing a very dangerous game in so threatening, within hours after Scalia’s death.  Public opinion is likely to reverberate against them if they follow through and create the longest delay in a Court appointment being confirmed.

The all time record is the 125 days between when Woodrow Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish member of the Court, until his confirmation in 1916.  The second longest delay was when Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork in 1987, and his rejection by the Senate after 114 days.

So to say it will take more than the 342 days when the next President is inaugurated to gain a ninth Supreme Court Justice is totally preposterous, and delays so many decisions, and basically cripples the ability of the Court to do its job, its constitutional duty.

Already, the Republicans have shown they do not believe in doing the government’s business in the House of Representatives and the Senate, so are they now going to do the same with the Supreme Court?

Is this the way for them to convince the nation to give them responsibility for control of both houses and the Presidency, and also the Court for the long term future?

Obviously, the answer is NO, so the chance for a Supreme Court of nine members might very well be resolved with Barack Obama appointing a perceived moderate to the Court, which will be hard for the Republicans to refuse to confirm!

Barack Obama is our President for another eleven months, and constitutionally, he has the right and the responsibility to choose a new Supreme Court Justice, no matter how the Republican Party feels about it!

The Schizoid Supreme Court: All Based On Moods Of John Roberts And Anthony Kennedy!

Ronald Leave a comment

It is clear that the Roberts Supreme Court is a schizoid body, sometimes doing what is right, and sometimes going totally wrong!

So the Roberts Court upheld the Affordable Care Act; gay marriage; and environmental regulations now–all attacks on states rights in these areas.

But at the same time, they have opened up the political system to corruption by billionaires with recent decisions; have weakened the Voting Rights Act; and have damaged affirmative action, believing that civil rights no longer is a major problem, just as we realize the extent of racism that still exists in America, despite having an African American President!

It all comes down to the mood of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. as the votes of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, are extremely predictable, based on their own lack of ethics in their business dealings, and their close association with the Koch Brothers, creating a conflict of interest.

If things were legitimate, Justices Scalia and Thomas, in particular, would be facing impeachment and removal from the Court, as they have demonstrated that they are the most obstructive Justices of the past century, only matched by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, but with an argument that they are more right wing than Rehnquist ever was!

The Dangers Of The Supreme Court Run Amuck In Favor Of Wealthy And Corporations!

Ronald 3 Comments

The Supreme Court is totally out of control, with its new decision on having no limits on campaign spending by wealthy donors, added on to the Citizens United Case of 2010, and the limitation of voting rights in a 2013 decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts has solidified a five member GOP majority to destroy all attempts to prevent corporate and wealthy people from controlling the political system, an effort pursued from the time of Theodore Roosevelt a century ago through Senator John McCain and Senator Russ Feingold in the 1990s and early 2000s.

That is all for naught now, and shows the dangers of a runaway, reckless, right wing radical Court!

This is what made Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Barack Obama criticize Court power, along with progressive reformers including Senator Robert La Follette of Wisconsin, Senator George Norris of Nebraska, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont!

This is the result of 13 Supreme Court nominees since 1960 by Republican Presidents, to only 8 by Democrats, and with two of those Democratic appointments (Arthur Goldberg by John F. Kennedy and Abe Fortas by Lyndon B. Johnson), only lasting three and four years respectively.

Of course, Republican appointments of Harry Blackmun by Richard Nixon; John Paul Stevens by Gerald Ford; Sandra Day O’Connor by Ronald Reagan; and David Souter by George H. W. Bush, turned out to be major surprises in their rulings, but we also ended up with some of the most reactionary and right wing radical appointments in all of American history with the appointments of William Rehnquist by Richard Nixon and the elevation of Rehnquist to Chief Justice by Ronald Reagan; Lewis Powell by Richard Nixon; Antonin Scalia by Ronald Reagan; Clarence Thomas by George H. W. Bush; and Samuel Alito by George W. Bush. The appointments of Chief Justice Warren Burger by Richard Nixon; Anthony Kennedy by Ronald Reagan; and Chief Justice John Roberts by George W. Bush, have been more of a mixed bag, sometimes good, and sometimes horrible in its effect on constitutional law!

Meanwhile, John F. Kennedy selected a mostly conservative Justice Byron White; Lyndon B Johnson selected Thurgood Marshall; Bill Clinton selected Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer; and Barack Obama selected Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, but sadly, their influence in the last four of the five names listed, has been mostly in being the opposition, sometimes vehement in nature!

The effect on the future of American democracy is massive, with this right wing Court majority, and the only hope is the eventual retirement of Scalia and Kennedy, and hopefully, continuation of a Democratic Senate and President for the rest of the decade, so that the Court changes direction in the future!

Two Supreme Court Justices Prove To Be Disasters And Embarrassments: Clarence Thomas And Samuel Alito!

Ronald 4 Comments

It is now clear that the second Supreme Court nominee choices of George H. W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush, have turned out to be disasters and embarrassments to the Court they serve on!

Clarence Thomas was appointed by the elder Bush, and went through a tumultuous Supreme Court nomination battle, centered on sexual harassment charges by Anita Hill, and his confirmation was the closest vote of a successful nominee in decades!

He has proceeded to be an embarrassment, showing bitterness and the desire for revenge, and sullying the memory of the first African American Justice, Thurgood Marshall, who he replaced on the Court in 1991.

And a beneficiary of affirmative action, he has now, just today, compared affirmative action to slavery and segregation, an absolutely crazy comparison!

This man is inappropriate in his behavior in so many ways, including NEVER asking a question during oral arguments, the only Justice in memory to have that unfortunate distinction!

And then there is Samuel Alito, the appointment of George W. Bush in 2005, who mouthed open opposition to Barack Obama’s criticism of the Citizens United Case in his State of the Union Address in 2010, embarrassing himself and the Court!

And Alito, today, mocked fellow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg with gestures, including rolling his eyes, shaking his head, and looking at the ceiling. And Alito apparently has a problem with the other women Justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, showing disrespect for them in open Court. As Dana Milbank of the Washington Post said today, Alito displays “Middle School antics”.

And imagine, Alito could have been the Chief Justice if John Roberts had already begun testimony to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, but before he could, Chief Justice William Rehnquist died, and President Bush decided to switch Roberts to the Chief Justice position, and so Alito replaced O’Connor as an Associate Justice on the Court! Imagine Chief Justice Alito, the sour puss and nasty personality!

So the Bushes made major mistakes in selection of Thomas and Alito, and the Court is stuck with them for many years, beyond the retirement of another conservative, Antonin Scalia, who is more intelligent, and more charming, even if often obnoxious as well!

40 Years Of Roe V Wade: Abortion Controversy Remains Red Hot!

Ronald 6 Comments

Forty years ago today, the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision, declared the right of women to an abortion, with three Richard Nixon appointments to the Court–author of the decision Harry Blackmun, and Chief Justice Warren Burger and Associate Justice Lewis Powell—joining two Eisenhower appointees—Potter Stewart and William Brennan—one Johnson appointee, Thurgood Marshall—and one Roosevelt appointee, William O. Douglas—in the majority.

Only Associate Justice Byron White, appointed by Kennedy; and William Rehnquist, appointed by Nixon, were in the minority.

Forty years later, the pro life and pro choice movements are still locked in constant combat, but with public opinion polls showing 54 percent want abortion rights retained all of the time or most of the time, with 44 percent against. And 70 percent in a poll do not want to see Roe V Wade overturned.

But meanwhile, Republican state legislatures in the past two years have passed a total of over 130 laws restricting the rights of abortion, and curbing the number of abortion providers.

Four states have made it almost impossible for women to obtain an abortion—Mississippi, Arkansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

So the federal allowance for abortion may exist, but in the South and Great Plains areas of the nation, it is becoming nearly impossible for abortions to be obtained, no matter whether it is because of rape, incest, life of the mother, or just any other reason, whether seemingly justifiable or not.

Abortion is an emotional issue, and one that most people would say needs to remain legal and safe but also RARE, and should not be used as a method of birth control, or because of reckless personal behavior. It is not an issue that will disappear anytime soon, but for now, the odds of reversing Roe V. Wade on the national level are remote, as Barack Obama will not appoint a Supreme Court Justice who gives any hint of wishing to overturn what many call the most controversial decision of the latter half of the 20th century.