Published in the October 2006 issue of the Grassroots Press
ROBERTS DOESN'T MEASURE UP
Chief Justice William Rehnquist will be remembered as the leader of the conservative move to the right on the Supreme Court. Rehnquist had been suffering from thyroid cancer since October 2004 but had managed to lead the court through its last term, which ended in June 2005. My question is, why didn't he resign then and give his blessing to President Bush's pick for his replacement?
Instead, he remained in office until his death last Saturday September 3rd. Two days after Rehnquist's death, Bush withdrew John Roberts' nomination as associate justice and nominated him instead for Chief Justice. Did Rehnquist feel that Roberts was not qualified for this honor?
Rehnquist's own path to the office of Chief Justice was an illustrious one. He grew up in a middle class, conservative Republican home, the son of a paper salesman. He served in World War II but did not see action, working instead as weather observer in the air force branch of the Army. He attended college on the GI bill, earning two masters degrees (one in political science from Stanford and one in government from Harvard), before graduating first in his class from Stanford Law
School in 1950. (Sandra Day O'Connor graduated third in the same class.)
John Roberts, on the other hand, graduated from Harvard Law School in 1979 magna cum laude, a distinguished student but not first in his class or even summa cum laude. Roberts then clerked for Rehnquist in 1980-1981. There is no doubt that Rehnquist knew Roberts' political views and his capabilities. He also had numerous opportunities to observe Roberts in action. Roberts argued over 50 cases before the Supreme Court between 1989 and 2002, 14 of them in the period 1995-2002.
Rehnquist was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Nixon in 1971 and took his oath of office on January 7, 1972. Like Roberts, he was a conservative Republican with little prior experience as a judge. Like Roberts, he served in the Justice Department before being nominated to the court. Unlike Roberts, he was overwhelmingly confirmed (and by a Democratic Senate) on his first nomination. And unlike Roberts, he served on the Supreme Court for nearly 15 years before being nominated, and confirmed, as Chief Justice in 1986.
This may be the reason why Rehnquist did not step down in July and anoint his successor. Roberts has little experience as a judge and no experience as a Supreme Court justice. In his early days on the Court, Rehnquist was outspoken as the Court's lone dissenter, but he also had an overriding commitment to majority rule regardless of what the majority decided. After he joined the Court he made no attempt to dismantle the civil-rights revolution, as political opponents feared he would. Rehnquist's liberal colleagues were impressed by his fairness and good nature, and as Chief Justice he was considered by all of them to be a distinct improvement over his predecessor, Warren Burger. More recently, Rehnquist had revealed a moderation in his views by voting with liberals to protect gay rights and free speech. How can Roberts possibly live up to this legacy?
Perhaps Rehnquist, a Lutheran, was uneasy with the growing preponderance of Catholics on the Court. Roberts would join Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy, making the Supreme Court 50% Catholic (with eight members, and possibly 56% Catholic if President Bush's next nominee is also Catholic). [2008 Note: Alito is indeed another Catholic.] Catholics represent 24.5% of the American population.
Unfortunately, if Bush were to choose a Chief Justice from among the current justices, he would probably pick the acerbic Scalia (like Roberts a Harvard Law School magna cum laude graduate). He should pick 72-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Like Rehnquist, she graduated at the top of her class (at Columbia Law School in 1959, while working her 'second job' as wife and mother as well). It is unlikely that she would serve a lengthy term, and this would give John Roberts, if confirmed as an associate justice, time to become more experienced in preparation for a nomination to Chief Justice.
The nomination of Justice Ginsberg would surprise (to put it mildly) both liberals and conservatives, give President Bush the distinction of choosing the first woman Chief Justice, and further distract from his current political problems. But Bush has been drearily devoid of surprises during his tenure as president. We can expect him to stick with his relatively undistinguished, unprepared choice. One would think that Roberts himself would have declined the Chief Justice nomination. As Luke 14:8-11 concludes, "For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
Rehnquist biographies:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/rehnquist.bio.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090301911.html?g=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/03/politics/wire-rehnquist.html?excamp=GGGNrehnquist
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/legal_entity/100/biography
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200504/rosen
Roberts biographies:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/robertsbio.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts_Jr.
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=MZZ82135
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:tkU8SSXyZJQJ:www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf+John+Roberts+biography&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Ruth Bader Ginsberg boigraphies:
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/legal_entity/107/biography
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/ginsburg.bio.html
Scalia from oyez too
Info on religious affiliations:
http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html