Why is Rehnquist still clinging to his SCOTUS chair?

[Sandpiper]

He's 80 years old, he has thyroid cancer, and he's obviously dying.

Is the Chief Justice so in love with power that he's decided to cling to it until he literally croaks on the bench?

Or is there something more to this that we don't know about (i.e. Bushco's assault on the judiciary)?

[madmax]

1. The bastard is afraid to die

He knows he's going to burn in hell, if there is one. :evilgrin:

[napi21]

2. Maybe he's pi**ed about all the Pub deathwatches!

I don't blame him! It's like being rich and having all you heirs just eagerly waiting for you to die!

[Rex]

3. He hates the Bush family.

nt

[MichiganVote]

17. I think this too. Some very interesting poker going on

[acmejack]

4. He was the one who added the gold stripes to the Chief Justice's robe!

I rather expect it has more to do with current events. Exactly what, I am not sure, but he has to have some really compelling reason.

[peace frog]

5. He's waiting for the Plame brouhaha to die down

so his resignation and the opening of his position will be The Big News. Or until he dies, whichever comes first (and it may be the latter if Fitzgerald wraps up the investigation and begins handing out indictments soon).

[RobertSeattle]

6. It boggles my mind as well

Power.

I love my "normal" life meaning I can go anywhere and not be "known". I think it would suck being a famous person since you lose so many everyday freedoms.

[candy]

7. Simple. Because he can ! Time for a rules change.

[mtnester]

8. Because he CAN

The worst mistake, IMO, our founding fathers made. Second worst is not allowing the masses (and I do not mean the Senate) themselves to remove a sitting president.

Male pride is a bitch somtimes. :) (no offense meant to ANYONE, just stating a sometimes fact)

[Totally Committed]

12. Exactly...

it is an appointment for life, or until the justice retires.

So far as I know, as long as he's breathing (even if he's brain-dead) he is a Supreme Court Justice, unless he chooses not to be.

Interesting thought: I wonder if The Culture of Life would extend to Rhenquist if he did become brain-dead, and there was another election looming. I wonder if the desire to appoint another RW activist on the Court would override his Right to Life? It would be interesting to watch...

TC

[mtnester]

18. Interesting, that would be SO interesting to watch play out

I mean, since according to THEM Terri Schaivo was still able to function, how in the WORLD could they push to have him removed, as long as he was being kept artifically "alive?"

Whole other can of hissing snakes IMO

[longship]

9. Respect for the court?

Closer to the end of his life, he may be concerned about his legacy. He doesn't want to give a failed president a nomination when he realizes that he might be villified forever for doing it. He might see the whole administration going down in flames, maybe soon.

What's interesting was the announcement a week or so ago that he was going to make between 10AM and 11AM (forget the date). It didn't happen. Maybe he heard some important info about impending WH meltdown and he reconsidered his retirement.

From all appearances, it looks like Rehnquist will stay on the bench until he dies. This is good news. Who knows, he may be worried enough about his legacy to moderate his positions. (Shear speculation.)

It fits together, but whether it's fact or not, we'll probably never know.

[WillowTree]

10. He's ill and his job may be a big part...

....of what's keeping him going. That's not an uncommon thing in cancer patients.

[More Than A Feeling]

19. I nominate your reason as the most believable

[Stewie]

11. They all do that

Something like eight of the fifteen Chief Justices did not retire, but died while on the bench.

[Cleita]

13. His health insurance?

Could it be that he would have to go on Medicare like the rest of us old farts if he retires and he doesn't want to?

[Gormy Cuss]

21. OOOOH!

I'd LOL, but neither his condition nor the Medicare crisis is very funny to me.

Great thinking out of the box answer, though.
:applause:

[tk2kewl]

22. hed have a pension and benefits that you and I could only dream of

[proiowadem]

14. He's doesn't want bush to name his successor

he would have retired in 2001 if John McCain would have been the republican in charge.

[K-W]

15. "He's 80 years old, he has thyroid cancer, and he's obviously dying"

And not one of those things makes him unable to be a justice, and it is his seat for life.

[AndyTiedye]

16. He Realized That He Would be Turning the US over to the Dominion

It is too bad he did not see the danger a lot earlier, it's almost
too late to stop them now.

[theboss]

20. They all do this

Thurgood Marshall practically needed a full-time nurse to sit next to him towards the end of his tenure.

It's the best job in the world. Incredible power to shape the country. You are treated like a god on Olympus. And your clearks do 90 percent of the work.

[Danmel]

25. I remember when he stepped down and he was asked why

And he said "because I'm old, I'm falling apart". God, how I miss that man (and Justice Brennan too- he had that twinkle in his eye that mean old Republicans only have when they are counting their money)

As to Rehnquist- I think he just is likely pissed at all the implied death watch stuff- I don't think he wants to be pressured into anything- he'll either die or retire when HE wants to.

[Lexingtonian]

23. At that age

the major personal issue remaining is the one of reputation/fame, and accomplishments.

As it is, the Supreme Court has changed course since Bush v Gore and is presently starting to destroy the pre-2000 'accomplishments' of Rehnquist in driving a particular Right/Conservative (mis)interpretation of the Constitution.

Bans on gay sex
upheld: Bowers v Hardwick, 1986
overturned: Lawrence v Texas, 2003

Capital punishment of the mentally retarded
upheld: Penry v. Lynaugh, 1989
overturned: Atkins v. Virginia, 2002

Capital punishment of under-18s
upheld: Stanford v. Kentucky, 1989
overturned: Roper v. Simmons, 2005

Lawrence more or less blew out the whole argument for making gay people second class citizens, and with that the whole issue of gender-based rights (read: achievement of womens' equality) is revived and the Court is now 'liberal' on it, i.e. expected to permit legalization of gay marriage and tolerate no more attempts to make/keep women second class citizens whatsoever. (This includes tampering with Roe v. Wade.) Rehnquist has lost that charge the Nixon people gave him- upholding DOMA is all that can be done now.

Atkins and Roper are less than abolition of capital punishment (the 'death penalty') but signs that the carving down of it, stalled since the 1970s, which will end in its full abolition is approaching inevitability. (Around 2020 or 2030 in my estimation.) Rehnquist and his Court spent a great deal of time and effort reviving capital punishment from near-abolition in the 1970s, engineering the Romer v Georgia verdict to do so iirc. This charge is also nearly lost to Rehnquist.

There's yet another challenge coming down the pike to overturn a major Rehnquist ruling that has kept Republicans in power and kept criminals who have served their sentences from becoming equal citizens. Rehnquist engineered and wrote the horrible verdict (Google it up, have a look at what the dissents tell of how he took a bad case and used it unconscionably) in Richardson v. Ramirez, 1974, which upheld laws disenfranchising these people and those within the penitentiary system of the vote. He knows that if/when he retires the plaintiffs in the lawsuit about this matter in Florida, Johnson v Bush, will appeal it to the Supreme Court and probably get an overturn.

***

The bottom line is that Rehnquist was put on the Court to stymy all the 14th Amendment civil rights verdicts that the likes of William Brennan were getting through, which constitute the 'liberal' vs 'conservative' stances and the true distinction between 'strict' and 'loose' "constructionism". He got a lot bizarre subversions and perversions of 14th Amendment rights into verdicts, most famously/infamously in Bush v Gore, where the writer essentially claimed that properly counting black peoples' votes amounted to violations of white voters' 14th Amendment rights. Literal black-is-whiteism of the crassest sort, particularly because the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 precisely in order to secure former slaves the ability to vote in the South. An absurd mockery of any idea of justice or the 14th Amendment. A perfect travesty.

The 14th Amendment is where the game is and has been for 60 years. It starts with Brown v Board and goes from there- all the progressive court verdicts, even Roe v Wade, are built on enforcement of its rights guarantees. The conservative game has been to try to vaporize them- see http://www.brennancenter.org/resources/ji/ji5.pdf

Right now, if Rehnquist were to leave the Court none of the potential replacements looks to go as far as he can/does in maintaining the remnants of that perverted jurisprudence that Rehnquist calls his legacy and purpose on the Court. I think saving Richardson v Ramirez from overturn would be the most immediate and particular reason in 2005/06, with upholding DOMA and minor others if he can last beyond the year.

Plus, if Rehnquist were to retire now, he might well yet live to see more of his 'accomplishments' overturned- his retirement would lead to reviews of his tenure on the Court and everyone realizing what the game has been, and the score and the trend in it showing him defeated.

That's why he can't retire. If he does, the Cause is Lost. It always was unlikely to prevail, but the supporters thought they could if they never gave up the will, the desire, the initiative. And now it's their 1865.

[Kelvin Mace]

24. Well...