Good Guys
William Rehnquist was my kind of good guy.
Commerce Clause Case
Last June, Rehnquist's crusade for a restrictive reading of the Commerce Clause suffered a setback in a medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich.
The majority, led by Justice John Paul Stevens, held that the federal government did have the power to prosecute those who grow marijuana even if they grow and use it entirely within a state. California had passed a law in 1996 allowing ill people to cultivate and use marijuana.
The growing of a commodity meant for home consumption has a substantial effect on the supply and demand for that commodity nationwide, Stevens reasoned. Therefore California marijuana growers were liable under federal law.
Rehnquist joined Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in dissenting from the court's ruling.
O'Connor argued that the principles which Rehnquist had set forth in the Lopez and Morrison decisions should prevail: the Constitution gives the federal government limited powers, not vast "police power" over virtually all activities within each state.
Foe of racial preferences
Rehnquist was a scathing critic of racial preference programs.
In a dissenting opinion in a 1979 case involving a white steelworker who was blocked from an on-the-job training program reserved for black workers, Rehnquist wrote, "there is perhaps no device more destructive to the notion of equality than... the quota. Whether described as 'benign discrimination' or 'affirmative action,' the racial quota is nonetheless a creator of castes, a two-edged sword that must demean one in order to prefer the other."
"He wants to protect the vulnerable states against a rampaging Congress. He is viscerally committed to the goodness of states."
"Rehnquist has been enormously influential in curbing, if not reversing, the Court's pro-criminal defendant rulings of the 1960s, in establishing state sovereignty decisions, and in questioning the scope of Congress's enumerated powers."
He defended the Constitution, limited the role of the federal government while promoting individual state's power (check out who voted not to federally prosecute marijuana growers and users in the state of california - it sure as hell wasn't the liberals on the court:), and in my opinion, had the strength of character to stand up for judicial opinions that didn't seem popular...but fucking made sense, all the while ensuring our individual liberties.
Unfortuantely, I think Bush is making a BAD CALL by nominating Roberts to fill the seat of Chief Justice. Don't misunderstand, I have complete faith in Robert's abilities as a jurist, but feel that he should be confirmed to an associate chair on the Court, and have a chance to serve before being bumped up to Chief Justice.
Commerce Clause Case
Last June, Rehnquist's crusade for a restrictive reading of the Commerce Clause suffered a setback in a medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich.
The majority, led by Justice John Paul Stevens, held that the federal government did have the power to prosecute those who grow marijuana even if they grow and use it entirely within a state. California had passed a law in 1996 allowing ill people to cultivate and use marijuana.
The growing of a commodity meant for home consumption has a substantial effect on the supply and demand for that commodity nationwide, Stevens reasoned. Therefore California marijuana growers were liable under federal law.
Rehnquist joined Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in dissenting from the court's ruling.
O'Connor argued that the principles which Rehnquist had set forth in the Lopez and Morrison decisions should prevail: the Constitution gives the federal government limited powers, not vast "police power" over virtually all activities within each state.
Foe of racial preferences
Rehnquist was a scathing critic of racial preference programs.
In a dissenting opinion in a 1979 case involving a white steelworker who was blocked from an on-the-job training program reserved for black workers, Rehnquist wrote, "there is perhaps no device more destructive to the notion of equality than... the quota. Whether described as 'benign discrimination' or 'affirmative action,' the racial quota is nonetheless a creator of castes, a two-edged sword that must demean one in order to prefer the other."
"He wants to protect the vulnerable states against a rampaging Congress. He is viscerally committed to the goodness of states."
"Rehnquist has been enormously influential in curbing, if not reversing, the Court's pro-criminal defendant rulings of the 1960s, in establishing state sovereignty decisions, and in questioning the scope of Congress's enumerated powers."
He defended the Constitution, limited the role of the federal government while promoting individual state's power (check out who voted not to federally prosecute marijuana growers and users in the state of california - it sure as hell wasn't the liberals on the court:), and in my opinion, had the strength of character to stand up for judicial opinions that didn't seem popular...but fucking made sense, all the while ensuring our individual liberties.
Unfortuantely, I think Bush is making a BAD CALL by nominating Roberts to fill the seat of Chief Justice. Don't misunderstand, I have complete faith in Robert's abilities as a jurist, but feel that he should be confirmed to an associate chair on the Court, and have a chance to serve before being bumped up to Chief Justice.