Rehnquist Bites The Dust

You know, it sort of it disgusts me that I'm seeing all of these false condolences coming from every fucking politician who gets a chance to chime in. None of them really care that he's dead. No one is really saddened by this death. When someone you care for dies, you generally feel depressed and say a whole lot more than 5 seconds worth of rhetoric. But that's ok. Everyone already knows every politician in existence is a liar. All you have to do is ask yourself what type of person would seek a career in politics.

I personally, greatly admire this man for one main reason. He died while still on the bench. I mean, really think about that. He was given a life term in the 70's, and he served as chief justice for 19 years, and he was still serving until the day he died. He didn't retire like these other pussies. He made a life long commitment, and that is something that deserves the utmost respect.

However, he made a few decisions that I happen to find disturbing. First of all, he dissented in Roe v Wade. I didn't even know that until I was just discovered while researching his decisions to write this very piece. I just always assumed that the Chief Justice would certainly agree that women have the right to do whatever they want to their body. Wether it's shoving a branding iron up her ass, or choosing to abort the fetus in her body. Government should have absolutely no say when it comes to abortion. If anyone should have a say, it's the partner. Why should a women be able to abort a pregnancy that was created by her and her partner? Why should a women be able to force her partner to have a child, when maybe he isn't quite ready? If anyone should have a right to stick their nose into a women's maternal business, it should be the co-creator. I'm not necessarily saying the father should have an equal say, but I do believe that in extreme circumstances, the father should have a say in the matter wether the mother wants to have an abortion or wants to continue the pregnancy.

In 1981, he upheld a law made by congress that prevented women from registering to be drafted into the military. Apparently, he doesn't have a good understanding of that pesky little amendment that gives the right to form militias, and does not specify gender. Congress made some boneheaded law that prevented women from registering because they weren't allowed to fight anyway. It's shit and it was nothing but a law to keep women out of the military. These fucking men were pigs in the 80's, and many of them are still in their position today. I really can't wait for my generation to be elected. Slowly but surely, these conservative assholes are dying off. I truly believe that conservatism does nothing but impede the progression of civilization. Like Walt Disney, I am a person who has one foot in the past and one foot in the future. This is the way it should be. I'm really just pissed that we don't have flying cars yet. That's what this all boils down to, really.

In 1989, Rehn dissented, but the Supreme Court did indeed strike down laws in Texas that banned flag burning. His interpretation of the Constitution on this case disturbs me. In a case like this, I know he knew this was unconstitutional, but he let his conservative values get in the way. He claimed that for more than 200 years the American flag has been the symbol of our nation, and because it occupies this "unique position," governmental prohibition should be in place to prevent people from burning the flag. He says the flag isn't simply another idea or point of view competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas, but millions of Americans recognize that unique position it holds in our country.

I agree that the flag is our most sacred symbol. However, I do believe that burning a flag is a form of speech, and it is therefor protected by the first amendment. Now, I wouldn't say every action if a form of speech. The Constitution says nothing about freedom of expression, but only freedom of speech. The only thing to determine here is if a particular action is common enough, bold enough, and strong enough to be considered as a statement. People all over the entire world burn particular flags to make political statements. I firmly believe flag burning is a form of speech. If you asked me if burning something obscure like a copy of the declaration of independence was freedom of speech, I would say no. That document also holds a "unique position," and it can also be used to express your beliefs. The very fact that the American flag is exactly as Rehn describes it, as the most important symbol we have is exactly what makes it a burnable item to be considered speech.

Oh, and by the way. I personally believe that anyone who's pissed off enough to burn an American flag should put that effort into leaving the country. I mean, if you really hate America enough to burn the flag, why stay here? If I'm unhappy at a restaurant, I will leave. I just believe people who burn flags are more than likely insane, and just don't think rationally. Regardless, they're shitheads and I would physically attack anyone I saw burning a flag. But despite all of that, they still have the constitutional right to burn a flag, because it's so bold that it's not just an expression, but is absolutely considered speech.

In 1990 Rehnquist decided that dying patients being kept alive by artificial means did indeed have a right to die, but only if they had made this request known while in a fully competent state. Very good decision Rehn. People absolutely do have the right to die rather than be kept alive by machines. They have the right to make this choice, as long as they're not depressed and suicidal when making this choice. Not much else to say on this one.

In 1991, the Supreme court reheard a previous decision that barred victim's testimonies to be taken into account during the sentencing phase, as well as evidence of the victim's character. In 1989, they decided that somehow, that had something to do with the eighth amendment. It's really funny to me, because these lawyers and judges alike absolutely twist and mangle the words "cruel or unusual," but what they forget is that in the time that this Constitution was written, people were regularly executed by hangings. Even Abe Lincoln's killer was hung. Regardless, somehow in 1989 they decided that this was cruel and unusual. In 1991, it was overturned. Very good decision I must say. The only swaying this does is to give killers and rapists stiffer penalties, and I'm all for it. I don't plan on raping or killing, so I don't mind these people getting as much time as possible. And I certainly agree with every word of Rehn's opinion on this particular case.

He made another good decision in 1995. Congress passed a law that banned guns within 1000 feet of a school. First of all, why the fuck would they waste their time with that? What the fuck is that going to help? As if it's any easier for someone who lives 1000 feet from a school to bring a gun in and kill people, opposed to someone living 2000 feet away? Give me a fucking break. I can't believe these assholes get paid. Anyway...

Of course, Rehn, along with the supreme court of course, struck this law down because it is blatantly and obvious even to the most naive reader of the Constitution that is violates the second amendment. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Well, this law did exactly that. I mean, there isn't even any fancy workaround for this one. Blatantly unconstitutional. It seems Rehn got much better in his old age. It seems that once he reached his 70's, his partisan bullshit sort of faded away.

Here's a good one for the liberals. He decided in favor of Bush v Gore in 2000. He basically said you can't count ballots that people fucked up on. You can't even try. Plus, in accordance with Florida law, you can't even dispute this anymore. Those fucking Democrats brought it all the way to the supreme court. A simple law student could have decided this one, but they absolutely had to try everything. Although, I will admit that something is definitely fucked up in our system when the person who gets more votes doesn't become the president. I mean, that's an undisputed fact. Gore won the popular vote, but Bush still became the president because that's our system. I don't think they saw this as a possibility when they thought up that pointless electoral college system.

Why must politicians always over complicate things? It shouldn't be about winning states. There's too much room for error when you delegate a certain number of electoral votes for each state. There's just no reason to over complicate. It seems to be that all the electoral college does it make it easier and more simple for the candidates to campaign. I bet that's really why they made it. "You know, this is a pain in the ass. Can't it just be a contest as to who wins the most states so we can goto each state and try to win them over one at a time?" I bet that's how the conversation went. Regardless, most people will admit that when you take partisanship out of it, when the guy who loses the popular vote becomes president, something is fucked up.

Now we come to 2004, where he heard that stupid fuck Michael Newdow's case. What a piece of shit that man is. Pushing his atheist beliefs (I'm an atheist, or as I like to call it "normal") in the name of his daughter. This guy makes me fucking sick. Anyways, Rehn dissented along with the rest of the court, but his reasons were not good ones and were, in my opinion, wrong. Elk Grove Unified School District had a policy that required teachers to lead students in reciting the pledge. Of course, the big problem with that is that little "under God" part, as Rehn refers to it. But the problem isn't "under god." The problem is "One nation under God" thats a problem. And these fucking Judges never get that. If the pledge went "One nation, indivisible, under god" then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it as I do.

Regardless, Rehn ruled against Newdown because the pledge, as a historical matter, sums up the attitude of the nation's leaders, and because it's part of some of our public observances. Christmas I guess. The fact of the matter is that his reasons are beyond asinine. I don't know why he felt the need to add in anything more than he did, but for some reason he felt compelled to through a little personal belief in there. Regardless, there is no law establishing a religion in this case. I spoke of a law a month or so ago that required teachers to lead the pledge. This is an absolute violation of the first amendment because a law is involved, and this is the language the Constitution uses. I'll expect to see that case before the Supreme Court soon enough. Good ruling on this one, Rehn. I just wish the elaboration he made wasn't so stupid.

Now for one of his last ruling in 2005. His ruling upheld a 6-foot Ten Commandments monument. Again, there is absolutely no law here establishing a religion. They are establishing a religion, but theyre is no law. The legislature could in effect create a law that bans any religious doctrine from state property. Constitutionally, there is no problem with this. However, I think it is extremely wrong, and sort of "morally constitutionally" wrong. I mean, of course there is no law that says this statue must be here, but these people know they're at least establishing their religion, and it's just not the place for it. Thou shall keep holy the Sabbath? Honor thy Mother and Father? That has no business in a court room.

So all of this leads me to wonder how I got through school without prayer or God being pushed down my throat. I mean, constitutionally a teacher can talk about God, just as long as they're not mandated to do so. There must be some case out there I'm missing. Or maybe they just know their boundaries. Regardless, I really believe that the Conservatives will keep on keeping on in the fight for children to be exposed to religion, wether their parents want it or not. Wether it's "under God" in the pledge or Creationism being taught along side Evolution, they will keep fighting until they die. I just can't wait for the complete Evolution from religion as a whole. Compare 1905 to 2005. We've come along way with religion, and I thank the Liberals for fighting the good fight when it comes to that area. With every generation, fewer and fewer people hold on to the concept of a supreme deity. And I like it.

So in closing, Rehn wasn't too bad of a guy. He sure was a fucking idiot in the late 80's there, but he obviously became more and more judicial and less and less partisan. Overall, I would say he was a man to be proud of, and certainly a man to be respected. Lawyers make a lot more money trying cases than they do serving on the bench, and he did it for 33 years. When dining with colleagues, they would order wine and he would order beer. From everything I've read, he was obviously a good down to earth person. Very modest, and absolutely dedicated to the honor of the bench. I hope he isn't just remembered for his ruling on Bush v Gore. I just hope he goes down in history for his absolute dedication to the Supreme Court. He fucking died still sitting on his bench. He was given a life term over 3 decades ago, and until the day he died, he served.

In the last interview I saw him give only a month or so ago, a reporter asked him if he was retiring as rumors were flying around like crazy. His response? "That's for me to know and you to find out." We found out.