Chief Justice John Roberts?

[JFN]

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) 
(Rehnquist dissenting)

"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 
v. U.S.
530 U.S. 428 (2000) (Rehnquist for a 7-2 majority).

John Noble
Not a conlawprof