Talk:William H. Rehnquist

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I haven't checked the book cited for the dosage of Placidyl that Rehnquist was on but a quick check of Nexis indicates there were numerous stories about his trip to GWU in 1982.--Bob Burton 21:23, 31 Jan 2005 (EST)

Howdy Bob. The author's reference for this claim is the NYT August 12-14, 1986. Peace Spacegrit

odd Rehnqusit thoughts - and a light bias challenge

He was addicted to prescription painkillers. If the pain is chronic and bad enough, few who aren't masochists would resist continued prescriptions. If the dosage was 1500mg of Placidyls a day, I'm surprised he could write his opinions the way he does. He is a justice that is alleged to do his own writing, but the research is of course done by his clerks. I had Placidyls prescribed to me once, at a very low dosages, and I was unable to do anything but sleep and watch reality spinn around my head, which was ok for then, as I had torn an ankle ligament, very very painful.

The stub is a bit one-sided though. far be it from me to claim Rehnquist is one of the greats, but he has staunchly defended the first ammendment, is reported to have some Early American editorial cartoons which depicts presidents in compromising sexual situations, including a Washington bestiality cartoon, he sided with Flynt when Falwell sued him for the satire of Falwell having sex with his mom, and is reported to have an outstanding satirical sense of humour and doesn't take offense to jokes at his expense.

I believe the Woodwar/Bernstein book "Turning Right"? (or something like that) wrote of an instance when they had a celebration of his appointment to be Chief, and some did a skit that was basically desperate pleading "to save Miranda". Rehnquist found to to be very amusing. Much to Wrabid Wight Wringer Elmer Putzes' dismay, when it came time to decide, he sided with affirming Miranda, in the truly conservative non-activist fashion, of letting the established law and accustomed American practise stand.

It really sad that Rehnquist never thought as highly of the fourth ammendment as he did the first though, and he in my opinion weighed in on the wrong side for two of the real bastardised decisions of the post Warren Court era. Bowers v Hardwicke, which held that the right to privacy is only a right in the sanctity of the marital relationship, and did not extend to non married couples (in this case gay), eventhough they had been caught in the act of homosexual congress because a warrant had been served on the wrong house. Evil piece of work that, but has since been overturned in Lawrence v Texas. The other real antithetical to American Ideals case that comes to mind would be Fulminante v Arizona (i'm, thinking '92, but possibly 91-93), which held that use of a government's coerced confession against a defendant in a criminal case is not grounds for immediate mistrial and retrial, but instead held under the lesser standard of "harmless error", althought it is difficult to comprehend a trial where this type of error could ever be honestly termed "harmless", given the fifth ammendment.

Long rant here, just saying that the article seems a bit biased, and I am truly hoping that Rehnquist has seen the light in a Nixonian Realist moment of clarity, and is giving his all to outlast Dubya. He has after all, worked with Clarence "hey baby, wanna pepsi?" Thomas and Antonin "only the guilty need rights" Scalia for many years now. And believe me, any homophobic black satin robed fetishist that GW would pick would be one hell of a lot worse than Rehnquist ever was. Bush has stated publicly that he thinks one of his dad's worst mistakes was Souter, who will be conidered a centrist in future history books.

--Hugh Manatee 14:18, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)

post script:

Just picked off the google add feed in the rehnquist side bar.

artisan publishers

David Barton, Original Intent - Describes how the Supreme Court has rewritten the Constitution!

One of the biggest current Lies Perpetrated by the religious right. Almost all of the Active Fondiers of America had a deep understanding of the need to separate the Goverment from all religious activities, and it was the Unitarians and Calvinists who participated in armed defense, not the anabaptists or the puritans. Plymouth Bay Colony had early laws that required the whipping of any wandering Quakers, but anaBaptists, being they were avid and able proslytisers should be burned at the stake. Fine Christian theory in the modern tolerance of only Christians (as of late prefaced with Judeo) as historical American thought.

The vector of infection of religion into American government came after the American Revolution and Connstitution's founding, and came from the elected legislators. Even Washington, cited most prevalently by the purveyors of America as a Christian Country BS, offered several instances in his writing indicating a deep understanding of why it was sensible to keep the clergy way from the government.

I believe that the Babist ministers of Revolutionary times did offer one invention though, they conceptualised and designed the reversable jacket, one side blue and one side red. Nothing has changed.

This is evil spin as bad as "intelligent design", and has been mainstreamed into acceptability seldom challenged.