Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

The Real Rehnquist

By David Corn, TheNation.com. Posted September 7, 2005.


In recent years, there has been no other Supreme Court justice who had a personal history so loaded with racism.

I confess: I have a hard time saying "William Rehnquist, rest in peace."

Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist, who died on Saturday night, spent much of his adult life trying to restrict the rights of American citizens and to empower further the already-powerful.

He rose to prominence as a right-wing attorney who decried the Earl Warren court for being a hotbed of judicial activism (left-wing judicial activism, as he saw it). He then became, as a Supreme Court justice, a judicial activist of the right-wing sort, overturning laws made by Congress (that protected women against domestic violence, banned guns near school property, and prohibited discrimination against disabled workers) and steering the justices into Florida's vote-counting mess in 2000 (an act that only coincidentally--right?--led to George W. Bush's presidency).

In that case--Bush v. Gore--Rehnquist, for some reason or another, put aside his much heralded belief in state sovereignty, which led him, on other occasions, to grouse about limits on the abilities of states to execute criminals. When it came to states frying prisoners, he advocated a hands-off approach. In vote-counting, he was all for intervention.

But let's be clear: in recent years there has been no other Supreme Court justice who had a personal history so loaded with racism--or, to be kinder than is warranted, tremendous insensitivity to racial discrimination--as did William Rehnquist.

As a law clerk for Justice Robert Jackson in the early 1950s--when the Court was considering the historic Brown v. Board of Education school desegregation case--Rehnquist wrote a memo defending the infamous 1896 decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, which established the separate-but-equal doctrine. Rehnquist noted, "That decision was right and should be reaffirmed." In other words, he favored continuing discrimination and racial segregation.

During his 1971 confirmation hearings, after he was nominated to serve as an associate justice on the Supreme Court, he said that memo merely reflected Jackson's view not his own. But few historians have bought that shaky explanation.

It's not hard to conclude that Rehnquist was on the wrong side of history and then lied about it--especially given actions he took later. In 1964, Rehnquist testified against a proposed ordinance in Phoenix that would ban racial discrimination in public housing. As The Washington Post notes in stories on his death, Rehnquist wrote at the time, "It is, I believe, impossible to justify the sacrifice of even a portion of our historic individual liberty for a purpose such as this."

In other words, people are not truly free if they are not free to discriminate. In his 1971 hearings, Rehnquist repudiated that stance. But did he really mean it?

Twelve years later, he was the only justice to say that Bob Jones University--that hotbed of racial discrimination and religious bigotry--had a legal right to keep African-Americans off its campus.

"He Lived for The Law"--that's how AOL headlined the story on Rehnquist's death. But it's not that Rehnquist had a blind spot on race. He was an active proponent of discrimination. Yet this fellow--without truly making amends--became chief justice of the highest court of the land. Only in America.

As Rehnquist's impact on America is considered, it ought not be forgotten--particularly at a time when we see how the poor of New Orleans have been neglected--that Rehnquist was at times all too willing to forget about the rights of those less fortunate than he.

Digg!

David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation and author of "The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception." He writes a blog at davidcorn.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Poll Tax
Posted by: Tom Degan on Sep 7, 2005 3:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's not forget that good ol' boy Bill was a strong advocate of the poll tax. The poorest among us, had he had his way, would have had no voice whatsoever. And do you really believe for a minute that he would have intervened in Florida the way he did in 2000 had Gore been ahead in the polls? He was a disgrace to the meaning of the constitution. He along with Antonin Scalia and Uncle Clarence Thomas.
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: But now Posted by: The Butcher
swamp fox
Posted by: swamp fox on Sep 7, 2005 4:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there is a God for Judge Rehnquist, he will surely damn him to hell for giving this country a moron for a president.
I blame him for the disaster of New Orleans for it is the Bushites who cut the city's flood control money.
Burn, Billy boy, burn!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

big daddy
Posted by: fred_53_99 on Sep 7, 2005 4:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
at best he fought on the wrong side of history . Time and the best of America passed him by. He leaves behind nothing but a leagecy of saying no the God given rights of his fellow Americans. His tombstone should read "he said no". There's little else to remember.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: big daddy Posted by: jwg
Individual Liberty
Posted by: karyse on Sep 7, 2005 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Playing devil's advocate for a moment:

A true conservative (and I'm not talking about the religious nut cases who are NOT true conservatives) is interested, above all, in the preservation of the U.S. Constitution and will not, therefore, alter it for the whims of politics.

1)[Rehnquist] interfered in state politics for the vote count in Florida, but not a state's policies on execution.

There is a fundamental difference in the two cases and to conflate them is ridiculous. Obviously the election of the President is a Federal situation -- it's a no brainer -- whereas individual states (thus far) still have execution in their hands. [I, by the way, am completely and utterly opposed to capital punishment, and would welcome a federal law prohibiting it.] It is the Legislature that must do that, not the courts. Indeed that would be "legislating from the bench" because the Legislature (the people) refuses to do it.

2) According to the article, Renhquist wrote, "...impossible to justify the sacrifice of even a portion of historic individual liberty for a purpose such as this" and the author translates the statement to, "in other words, people are not truly free if they are not free to discriminate."

Well, ... ya, and your point is? Make no mistake about it. Either individual liberty is important, or it isn't. I, indeed, ought to be free to associate with whomever I wish, unless (and this is important) I am receiving FEDERAL money. That is to say, if I am a private organization, if I receive no money from the State, the state CANNOT and OUGHT not, tell me a damn thing about who I can or cannot let in to my club. If Bob Jones University does not take money from the state, then Bob Jones is perfectly justified in its policies (whatever idiotic policy they institute), just as the NAACP is justified in NOT giving money to a rich white kid.

3) "Rehnquist was all to willing to forget the rights of those less fortunate than he."

Wrong. Individual rights as established by the Constitution of the United States of America was the important criteria in his decisions. Just because certain individuals practice racial discrimination (and contrary to the article Rehnquist wasn't one of them -- his decisions affected discrimination issues, but it was a side effect of individual liberty) doesn't mean we should abandon individual liberty as sacrosanct.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Individual Liberty Posted by: SDogood
» RE: Individual Liberty Posted by: nakis
» RE: Individual Liberty Posted by: herb kraus
SDogood
Posted by: SDogood on Sep 7, 2005 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that this man also helped to usher modern, extreme partisanship into the judicial branch. He helped to give such views credibility, portraying the lunatic right as representative of current American values. It is amazing how in the face of hypocrisy, this 'man of intellect' championed his own 'activism' while condemning others who did the same. I find it ironic that 'God' Robertson prays for some dead justices...and the first one happens to be his ideological brother.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Irony Posted by: Olympiada
granARJ
Posted by: astockton on Sep 7, 2005 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alan Dershowitz wrote his own obituary of Rehnquist which can be read at Arianna Huffington's blog. He recalls that Rehnquist was first in his class at Stanford Law School and says it certainly helped that in those days, Stanford had a "Jewish quota" which limited the competition. Also, Rehnquist and some like-minded friends would parade past a Stanford dorm where some Jewish students lived, goose-stepping and giving the Nazi stiff-arm salute. Wanna bet that if someone had asked Rehnquist about that, he'd have called it a youthful indiscretion? The media reported long lines of mourners passing his coffin at the Supreme Court building. From what I saw of the lines, they're just like those at Ronald Reagan's funeral--all white.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:Smart Comment but Posted by: The Butcher
» Rehnquist Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: ehnquist Posted by: astockton
» RE: ehnquist Posted by: Lindie
» Thank you Lindie Posted by: Olympiada
overturning laws made by Congress
Posted by: Olympiada on Sep 7, 2005 9:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like your writing style, Mr. Corn, I find it quite palatable. I grew up with The Nation on the coffee table, but never read it much. Guess I wasn't 'old enough'. Am now.

Rehnquist sounded like a truly evil man. A wicked man. A villian.

I remember learning about the Warren court in political science. I found it most interesting. And I learned about Brown vs. The Board of Education in high school US History, from a remedial class, no less...that I voluntarily placed my self in cause I was sick of the Eurocentric AP US History.

Overturning laws made by Congress? Against the protection of women and children? Dangerous man!

This is sick.

Why on earth would a man like this and how on earth could a man like this get elected to the Supreme Court?

Scary!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» his old law clerk Posted by: Olympiada
Rehnquist
Posted by: alien on Sep 7, 2005 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that Bill Rehnquist is dead, will I have to wait long for another racist, narrow minded bigot with an axe to grind? Rehnquist was a little man with aspirations to be considered an intellectual giant. But his small view of the world will always keep him in good company with the other pettty and insignificant ticks found in our government. His nasty attitude toward Americans can be found in most if not all of his decisions. His condescending attitude toward the rights of minorities should be mandatory reading during the dog and pony show for John Roberts. Since Roberts allegedly was such a fan of this prick he should have to read some of Rehnquists views on discrimination and be asked if he agrees with it. Like his predecessor he will lie about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No fan of Rhenquist, but.............
Posted by: bogey11 on Sep 7, 2005 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem that we now have is that we will replace one Rhenquist with another, and this one will "owe Bush," in his mind at least. The only positive to Rhenquist was that he was old. Now we are going to have another similar type for the next 40 years. And, we are going to have another to replace O'Connor. Face it folks, the Supreme Court is about to go from 5-4 to 6-3, thus ending any hope for sanity coming from that court. I, for one, wish that Rhenquist would have lived until 2008, assuming that we are still a country that has elections then. (and that is highly doubtful in my view) Trash me if you want, but I think we were better with him being alive, regardless of his views. At least he was OLD.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can someone PLEASE explain to me...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Sep 7, 2005 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...why the deceased Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is getting tarred and feathered, while the living Associate Justices who took away our property rights in the name of redistributable higher taxes get a free pass? I'm talking about Kelo v. New London!

Someone please tell me why critiquing 20, 30, and 40 year old memos written by a dead justice is more important than fighting for our lost right to own property.

I NEED to know why allowing the government to sieze a person's property and raze that citizens home for the purpose of allowing Pfizer (or Wal-Mart for that matter) to develop and build on that property takes a backseat to the "higher calling" of flinging feces at a dead chief justice.

Will someone out there just tell me that regardless of your disgust with Rehnquist, that owning a home and property that can't be confiscated and given to Wal-Mart is still important to you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Kelo v. New London! Posted by: Olympiada
» Owning property Posted by: ABetterFuture
» No enemies. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» My guess Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: My guess Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Incorrect Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Do you own property? Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
New Federalism
Posted by: brunowe on Sep 7, 2005 2:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"He then became, as a Supreme Court justice, a judicial activist of the right-wing sort, overturning laws made by Congress (that protected women against domestic violence, banned guns near school property,"

The activist label is accurate, but it is typical of left-wing partisans (and the NYTimes editorial board) to overlook that there was a principled reason for the "New Federalism" opinions that Mr. Corn references. The very language of the Interstate Commerce Clause indicates that there must be some connection with commerce, that there must be an object or instrumentality of commerce involved. Once that is met, Congress has great discretion to pass all sorts of legislation (i.e., anti-discriminations, safety, etc.).

In the cases involved, the facts revolved around local issue of criminal behavior. The only argument for placing these under the ICC is that they could have a national impact. This argument would give the ICC limitless scope since anything could be so construed (care for a game of Six Degress of National Impact?) but a limitless reach surely cannot be inferred from a clause that indicates finite reach.

Although this can be debated, it is not totally forthright of Mr. Corn to appraise the corretness of the decisions solely if the laws were beneficial (which they certainly were) and to not mention at all the fact that there is a principled position of constitutional interpretation involved.

Having said that, I totally agree with the rest of the appraisal of Rehnquist as a narrow right-wing ideologue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rehnquist
Posted by: lamar on Sep 7, 2005 2:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
William Rehnquist = Scumbag of the tallest order, or maybe second tallest. His whole goal was to bring back 1952. My only regret is that he lived so long. He was a real M-F'er. Terrible man. Great lawyer though. Gotta give that to the son of a dog.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rehnquist is dead...
Posted by: Linette on Sep 7, 2005 2:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.

...but The Republican Nemesis still lives...

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Have you all lost your minds?
Posted by: antimedia on Sep 7, 2005 4:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have just got done reading thru all your comments, and I must add my comment... Have you all lost your minds or just your humanity. I am niether republican or democrat, but for the record I would like to say, I do not find glee or joy in the death of any human. Be it a saddam husein or george w bush. If either one would die I am sure it would cause pain and suffering for many. And if you are the kind of person that finds enjoyment thru other peoples pain and loss, I feel sorry for you and pitty you. Look at the bigger picture that person is someonea father, son, brother, cousin, nephew, friend, old schoolmate or a friend. Just becuse of there beliefs and practices differ from yours does that give you a right to to redicule there death and show the lack of mercy for those left behind. I AM ASHAMED OF YOU!

Antimedia

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree with you antimedia, but Posted by: Olympiada
» The Darkness of Night Posted by: Olympiada
From bad to worse
Posted by: mim on Sep 9, 2005 4:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, William Rehnquist turned the Supreme Court to the right, and he was one of the five who elected GWB in 2000, but as GWB said in the campaign, GWB's two favorite justices are Scalia and Thomas. I can't think of an example offhand, but we've had 7-2 decisions in which the two dissenters were Scalia and Thomas, and Rehnquist was on the same side as Stevens, Ginsburg et al. Whomever GWB appoints will be another Scalia or Thomas, as John Roberts is shaping up to be.

BTW does anyone remember "Love, Sidney?" On that program a neighbor had a big, fierce dog named Rehnquist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Come visit Bob Jones
Posted by: mikelwood on Sep 9, 2005 6:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please come visit us here at Bob Jones. Maybe you'll find that it's not quite the hotbed of racism and bigotry that you thought. Maybe there are some nice people here.

Mike

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Come visit Bob Jones Posted by: cyclone
Misrepresentation
Posted by: starksm on Oct 14, 2005 12:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Renquist's rationale for finding federal statutes related to violence against women and guns on school grounds was not related to right-wing activism or hatred of women and love of guns. Both statutes, the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, and the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were, at least in regard to the provisions that made it to the Supreme Court, were alleged to be within Congressional power to regulate by virtue of the Commerce Clause. The court majority in each case went through a fairly thorough analysis of whether guns in schools and gender-based violence had such a substantial affect on commerce as to bring guns and violence within the scope of the Congressional power.
Renquisit's personal opinions, thoughts, priorities may very well have been racist, disgusting, deplorable, hideous, and may have made him worthy of a prime seat in hell. But, his rulings on cases involving the previously-mentioned Acts, are not necessarily examples of this; rather, they are argued by many to be well-founded and appropriate interpretations of the Constitution. Simply citing them as examples of his evilness is cheating readers of the full story.
That being said, I'm happy to see him off.
Read the cases for yourself:
U.S. v. Morrision 529 US 598 (2000)
U.S. v. Lopez 514 US 549 (1995)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]