Chief Justice John Roberts?

[DavidEBernstein at aol.com]

Re Bob Jones: The issue was a ban on interracial dating, not "exclusion of 
Negroes."  And I'd be surprised if you can read the underlying legal debate and 
still maintain with a straight face that Bob Jones didn't have the better 
LEGAL argument (that the IRS had no statutory authority to deny it a tax exemption 
based on its dating policy).  I recommend an article by Neal Devins, written 
shortly after the decision.

As for the criminal procedure stuff, isn't odd that the Warren Court, and not 
the Constitution, is the body that "afforded criminals" these protections.  I 
generally like these protections, but I'll be damned if I can find Miranda 
warnings, even implicitly, in the Constitution.

All this is a long way of saying that while I have my serious disagreements 
with Rehnquist, it's wrong to judge a Justice by the practical consequences of 
his decisions, regardless of whether they were legally correct.
In a message dated 9/5/2005 10:37:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
hchamber at richmond.edu writes:
Prof. Noble wrote: 
<Today's profile of Rehnquist by Charles Lane in the Washington Post recalls 
the Rehnquist who argued that Plessy was rightly decided; and that the 
Constitution <should be amended to overturn protections afforded accused criminals by 
the Warren Court; and who voted to allow Bob Jones Univ. to exclude negroes. 
<That's not the Rehnquist who died yesterday, and it bears no resemblance to 
Roberts.

David E. Bernstein
Visiting Professor
University of Michigan School of Law
Professor
George Mason University School of Law
http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20050905/13ff4326/attachment.htm