Rehnquist has died; further posts on hold
William Hubbs Rehnquist, b. 10/1/1924 d. 9/3/2005. His passing leaves a second vacancy on the Supreme Court, guarantees that the Court will not begin its new term in October with a full complement, and adds new importance to the nomination process already underway to replace O'Connor, who has indicated she will retire effective upon the confirmation of her successor.
I won't go into the Chief Justice's life and work; every single other media outlet and Blawg on the web seems to be ahead of me. I learned the news from the NY Times; Howard Bashman collected many good links; Eugene Volokh urged us all not to be too partisan too soon after the man's passing; many others chimed in with the news and with their thoughts.
I will note only that WHR served as an Associate Justice for well over 14 years, and as Chief Justice for very nearly 19. I am one of the millions of Americans for whom Rehnquist has always been on the high court during their lifetime, and who cannot remember a time when he was not Chief.
I will be travelng for trial for the next few weeks; expect occasional follow-ons to existing posts and comments, but not the next few editions of the now in-production Scalia Mega-Post. Still in the planning stages is a post on the care and feeding of trolls.
Watch also for a possible guest-post on Evan's blawg in the coming week, on a topic related to several of this blawg's chief interests: law, politics, and language.
As always, if you are looking for a particular specialty product, try asking for it. I might just comply with your requested post on, say, how linguistics can inform the study of contracts.
[update and afterthought: To correct a few misapprehensions.
I won't go into the Chief Justice's life and work; every single other media outlet and Blawg on the web seems to be ahead of me. I learned the news from the NY Times; Howard Bashman collected many good links; Eugene Volokh urged us all not to be too partisan too soon after the man's passing; many others chimed in with the news and with their thoughts.
I will note only that WHR served as an Associate Justice for well over 14 years, and as Chief Justice for very nearly 19. I am one of the millions of Americans for whom Rehnquist has always been on the high court during their lifetime, and who cannot remember a time when he was not Chief.
I will be travelng for trial for the next few weeks; expect occasional follow-ons to existing posts and comments, but not the next few editions of the now in-production Scalia Mega-Post. Still in the planning stages is a post on the care and feeding of trolls.
Watch also for a possible guest-post on Evan's blawg in the coming week, on a topic related to several of this blawg's chief interests: law, politics, and language.
As always, if you are looking for a particular specialty product, try asking for it. I might just comply with your requested post on, say, how linguistics can inform the study of contracts.
[update and afterthought: To correct a few misapprehensions.
- There is no such post as "Acting Chief Justice." The senior Associate Justice will lead the Court.
- Scalia and Thomas will not be nominated, now or in the future, to be Chief Justice
- Edith Jones is just as unlikely to be nominated to the Chief Justice slot as she was to be nominated to O'Connor's slot. That is, highly, highly unlikely
- O'Connor's point about her nominated successor not being a woman (yes, obvious) and how that meant she thought Bush had not made the perfect choice is now particularly apt. Bush will likely nominate a man, quite possibly a white man, to be Chief Justice
- My prediction would be that the second nominee will not be made public until the current process is complete
Posted by Eh Nonymous on
Sunday September 4, 2005 at 10:10am
#3 has proven to be miraculously obvious.
#4 has been shown to be wildly insightful.
#5 has been overtaken by unforeseen (by me) events. (that's my copout for being wrong... as usual)
I will re-read my promise, to see when and if I may comment on the pending confirmation process of the new nominee for Chief Justice of the United States, John G. Roberts.
It looks like I left myself remarkably little wiggle-room. Thus, until Roberts is confirmed or rejected by the Senate, I will not write on his nomination any further. There is, however, a hilarious and slightly dirty city paper article about Roberts' views on women; Supreme Jerk. It's not perfectly accurate, since it was either a tongue-in-cheek joke or overtaken by more recent events or possibly even fully justifiable at the time, but the article is funny. And, as I mentioned, not entirely clean.
*Not all comments welcome. Flippant, facetious, fierce, or fatuous, fine. Fraudulent, felonious, fabricated, facially insufficient, and farkin' futile, fuggeddaboutit.