Chief Justice John Roberts?
jfnbl at earthlink.com
Mon Sep 5 09:42:55 PDT 2005
At 10:36 AM -0400 9/5/05, Chambers, Henry wrote:
>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.
>I am curious why you believe this is so about Chief Justice
>Rehnquist. I have largely thought that the CJ muted his comments
>over the years, but that he had not done much to indicate that he
>had changed his core beliefs. Because I did not watch the CJ
>particularly closely, it is entirely possible that I am wrong and
>that he has written and said a substantial amount that indicates a
>change in views.
I suppose it's largely impressionistic, and I don't pretend to know
whether he changed his core beliefs or submerged them, but I think
this progression is revealing:
"But we have reaffirmed today that the States as States stand on a
quite different footing from an individual or a corporation when
challenging the exercise of Congress' power to regulate commerce."
National League of Cities v. Usery 426 U.S. 833 (1976) (Rehnquist for
a 5-4 majority)
"I do not think it incumbent on those of us in dissent to spell out
further the fine points of a principle that will, I am confident, in
time again command the support of a majority of this Court." Garcia
v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985)
"But we need not address the question whether general applicability
is a constitutional requirement for federal regulation of the States,
because the DPPA is generally applicable." Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S.
141 (2000) (Rehnquist for a unanimous Court).
At 11:08 AM -0400 9/5/05, DavidEBernstein at aol.com wrote:
>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.
That's right of course, but it makes it all the harder to have
envisioned this from Rehnquist when he took the bench:
"In sum, we conclude that Miranda announced a constitutional rule
that Congress may not supersede legislatively. Following the rule of
stare decisis, we decline to overrule Miranda ourselves." Dickerson
530 U.S. 428 (2000) (Rehnquist for a 7-2 majority).
Not a conlawprof
More information about the Conlawprof