A Troubling Dissent:Justice William Rehnquist and two of his colleagues

[cal04]

The Supreme Court did the right thing this week by staying out of a Colorado redistricting dispute. It properly deferred to the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling resolving the matter. What is troubling, however, is a dissent by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and two of his colleagues that argues for diving into the conflict. Given these justices' eagerness to defer to the states in other matters, the dissent smacks of partisan politics and raises new concerns about the court's neutrality.
The dissent attracted little notice because it fell one vote short of the four votes needed to review a case. But it is disturbingly reminiscent of the court's ruling in Bush v. Gore, in which five justices who had long been extremely deferential to state power suddenly overruled the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of Florida election law.

Cases like these quite naturally invite skepticism. As the court learned in 2000, it does grave harm to its reputation if it appears to be deciding election-law cases for partisan advantage. In cases of this sort, the court must make a special effort to show that it is acting on the basis of legal principle, the only basis for a court to act. By departing from his deeply held belief in state autonomy to side with the Republican Party in a redistricting case, Chief Justice Rehnquist has once again invited the public to question this court's motives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/opinion/11FRI2.html

[freetobegay]

1. The U.S. Supreme Court has been infected

We need to cut out the infection.

[NewJeffCT]

2. if Kerry wins in November

I still think it is a big IF due to Diebold, October surprises, etc.

But, if he wins in November, do you see any of the rightie justices stepping down? I don't think so - I see Rehnquist holding out as long as he can if Kerry wins. We'd have to remove his corpse from the bench if a Dem was president.

[Sporadicus]

3. The Supremes

should drop any pretense of maintaining political neutrality. The supreme court's credibility - always a matter of conjecture in my living memory - has suffered since the 2000 election debacle. The appointment process has always been hampered by partisanship, and the timing surrounding retirement of individual justices always takes into account their likely successors.

I recall reading that the president (generic term...not specifying *) has the power to appoint up to 13 justices onto the court. Perhaps their number should be increased in order to reduce the likelihood of a tiny clique conspiring to set their own agenda.

[Gildor Inglorion]

4. Sometimes political appointments to the Supreme Court backfire

and the appointee is a BIG surprise to the appointer. 2 cases in point: Earl Warren and David Souter.

[BootinUp]

5. Thanks for posting

I might have missed it. :)

[bemildred]

6. Impeach the Florida five.

They have no reputation but corruption.
The court should not be filled with political hacks.