[Senate Document 109-7]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress SENATE DOCUMENT S.Doc 109-007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST 1924-2005
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES
MEMORIAL TRIBUTES
IN THE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 23500.001
William H. Rehnquist
Photograph by Dane Penland, Smithsonian Institution
Courtesy the Supreme Court of the United States
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES
MEMORIAL TRIBUTES
IN THE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
Compiled under the direction
of the
Joint Committee on Printing
Trent Lott, Chairman
Order for Printing
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
Senators be permitted to submit tributes to Chief Justice
Rehnquist for the Record until September 30, 2005, and
that all tributes be printed as a Senate document.
FOREWORD
For more than 33 years on the Supreme Court of the
United States, William H. Rehnquist stood his ground,
insisting on both institutional vigor and constitutional
rigor. Echoing Alexander Hamilton's call for the
``complete independence of the courts,'' Chief Justice
Rehnquist consistently and directly defended judicial
independence as the ``crown jewel'' and the ``touchstone''
of our constitutional system of government.
Yet Chief Justice Rehnquist did not see judicial
independence merely as an end in itself, as a license for
judges to do as they wished, but as a means to an end. In
his 19th and final annual report assessing the state of
the judiciary, he wrote: ``The Constitution protects
judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to
promote the rule of law.'' Thankfully, he stood for the
judiciary using its independence properly to fulfill its
limited, but essential, role in our system of government.
Indeed, Chief Justice Rehnquist stood for a judiciary
that would do only what it was supposed to do. Like the
legislative and executive branches, the judiciary is,
after all, part of a system of government and can only be
understood as such. In one dissenting opinion, Chief
Justice Rehnquist described the judiciary's role in that
system this way: ``The Court's role as a final expositor
of the Constitution is well established, but its role as a
Platonic guardian admonishing those responsible to public
opinion as if they were truant schoolchildren has no
similar place in our system of government.''
One of Chief Justice Rehnquist's many former law clerks
who now populate law school faculties recently wrote in
tribute that ``[r]unning through his opinions on any
number of issues . . . is a commitment to the notion that
our Constitution leaves the hard questions, generally
speaking, to the people.'' When judges stick to judging,
in other words, legislators must do the legislating. I
think Chief Justice Rehnquist would say that is as it
should be.
Chief Justice Rehnquist's legacy will live on in many
ways. The James E. Rogers College of Law at the University
of Arizona has already established the William H.
Rehnquist Center on the Constitutional Structures of
Government. Not surprisingly, one of its three primary
themes will be judicial independence.
First as Associate and then as Chief Justice, William H.
Rehnquist touched the judiciary, the country, and the law.
But as a human being, he also touched many lives. In his
2000 commencement address at George Washington University
Law School, he painted a picture for the talented and
ambitious graduates of a life that includes ``pastimes and
occupations that many can enjoy simultaneously--love for
another, being a good parent to a child, service to your
community.'' Such choices, he said, ``will determine how
well spent you think your life is when you look back at
it.''
The tributes contained in this book come from Members of
the Senate and House, from both political parties. They
testify to the profound impact that William H. Rehnquist's
choices have had on the law and on the life of our Nation.
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch,
Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
CONTENTS
Order for Printing....................................
iii
Foreword..............................................
v
Biography.............................................
ix
Proceedings in the Senate:
Tributes by Senators:
Allen, George, of Virginia.....................
57, 62
Baucus, Max, of Montana........................
50
Boxer, Barbara, of California..................
24
Brownback, Sam, of Kansas......................
43
Carper, Thomas R., of Delaware.................
42
Coleman, Norm, of Minnesota....................
48
Conrad, Kent, of North Dakota..................
27
Cornyn, John, of Texas.........................
32
Corzine, Jon S., of New Jersey.................
5
Craig, Larry E., of Idaho......................
42
Dayton, Mark, of Minnesota.....................
47
Dole, Elizabeth, of North Carolina.............
64
Durbin, Richard, of Illinois...................
19
Enzi, Michael B., of Wyoming...................
29
Feingold, Russell D., of Wisconsin.............
30
Frist, William H., of Tennessee
......................................
3, 4, 6, 41, 48
Gregg, Judd, of New Hampshire..................
43
Hagel, Chuck, of Nebraska......................
32, 58
Hatch, Orrin G., of Utah.......................
24, 57
Hutchison, Kay Bailey, of Texas................
28
Isakson, Johnny, of Georgia....................
57
Jeffords, James M., of Vermont.................
39
Kyl, Jon, of Arizona...........................
35
Martinez, Mel, of Florida......................
47
McCain, John, of Arizona.......................
37
McConnell, Mitch, of Kentucky..................
14, 60
Murray, Patty, of Washington...................
49
Obama, Barack, of Illinois.....................
38
Reid, Harry, of Nevada.........................
4, 12
Sessions, Jeff, of Alabama.....................
20
Specter, Arlen, of Pennsylvania................
51
Stabenow, Debbie, of Michigan..................
60
Stevens, Ted, of Alaska........................
17
Voinovich, George V., of Ohio..................
60
Proceedings in the House of Representatives:
Tributes by Representatives:
Berman, Howard L., of California...............
74, 80
Carter, John R., of Texas ....................
80, 86, 90, 91, 96, 97, 98, 100
Chabot, Steve, of Ohio.........................
77
Coble, Howard, of North Carolina...............
76
Davis, Tom, of Virginia........................
79
DeLay, Tom, of Texas...........................
67, 68
Franks, Trent, of Arizona
...............................................
..........
83, 97
Gohmert, Louie, of Texas
.........................................
78, 87, 90, 97, 99
King, Steve, of Iowa
...............................................
.......
91, 97, 99, 102
Pearce, Stevan, of New Mexico..................
68
Pelosi, Nancy, of California...................
78
Schiff, Adam B., of California.................
100
Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr., of Wisconsin ..
69, 70, 71, 76, 77, 78, 80
Wilson, Joe, of South Carolina.................
69
Memorial Service......................................
103
BIOGRAPHY
William Hubbs Rehnquist was born October 1, 1924, in
Milwaukee, WI, the son of Margery Peck and William
Benjamin Rehnquist. He married Natalie Cornell of San
Diego, CA, and they had three children: James, born 1955;
Janet, born 1957; and Nancy, born 1959.
Justice Rehnquist attended public elementary and high
schools in Shorewood, WI, a suburb of Milwaukee. He
received bachelor's and master's degrees from Stanford
University, where he was Phi Beta Kappa; a master's from
Harvard University, Order of the Coif; and his LL.B. from
Stanford University.
He served in the U.S. Army Air Force in this country and
overseas from 1943 to 1946 and was discharged with the
rank of sergeant.
From February 1952 to June 1953, he was clerk to the
Honorable Robert H. Jackson, Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court. He practiced law in Phoenix, AZ, from 1953
to 1969. He was engaged in a general practice of law with
primary emphasis on civil litigation. In January 1969
President Nixon appointed him to be Assistant Attorney
General in the Office of Legal Counsel. In 1972 he became
an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. In 1986
President Reagan nominated him to be Chief Justice.
He contributed many articles on legal subjects to
various periodicals. He authored four books: ``The Supreme
Court: How It Was, How It Is''; ``Grand Inquests''; ``All
The Laws But One''; and ``Centennial Crisis: The Disputed
Election of 1876.''
Chief Justice Rehnquist served on the Supreme Court with
distinction for 33 years.
MEMORIAL TRIBUTES
FOR
CHIEF JUSTICE
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
Proceedings in the Senate
Tuesday, September 6, 2005
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following
prayer:
Let us pray.
Immortal, invisible, God only wise, You rule the Earth,
sea, and sky. As we deal with Hurricane Katrina's wake-up
call and the death of our 16th Supreme Court Chief
Justice, steady this great land. Make us grateful for the
acts of generosity and altruism we have seen in this
Nation and around the world.
Help us to remember Your sovereignty as You lead us away
from the dead-end streets of pointing fingers to the
productive paths of self-examination.
Like the canary in the mine, may these difficult days
warn us of the dangers of ignoring extreme disparities in
economic and social conditions. Forgive us when we cry
pathology in order to justify our own indifference. Help
us to build on this opportunity to work toward liberty and
justice for all.
Use our Senators as agents of Your will. Give them
wisdom to know what is right and the courage to do it. As
we labor to strengthen freedom in other nations, open our
eyes to the invisible people on life's margins in America.
Hasten the day when justice will roll down like waters and
righteousness like a mighty stream.
We pray in Your Holy Name. Amen.
Mr. FRIST. . . . Tomorrow, I will have more to say about
Chief Justice Rehnquist and the nomination of Judge
Roberts for Chief Justice.
Today, let me briefly say the Senate and the Nation
mourn the loss of the Chief, as he was affectionately
known by so many of us and known on the Supreme Court. We
will all miss Chief Justice Rehnquist--from his brilliant
legal mind to his efficient and effective administration
of the Supreme Court.
We look forward with confidence as the President's new
nominee for Chief Justice, Judge Roberts, is considered.
Judge Roberts learned from the best. He was, in fact, a
clerk, as we all know, for then-Associate Justice
Rehnquist. There is no doubt in my mind that Judge Roberts
has the temperament, has the skill, and has the mind to
lead the Supreme Court for decades to come.
With that, we have a lot to do. I know the Democratic
leader has a statement. Then we will have time this
afternoon after lunch for people to come back and make
statements as well.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, much has happened in the weeks
since we adjourned for the August recess. In just the last
few days, we have seen tragedy strike the gulf coast and
learned that our friend, William Rehnquist, Chief Justice
of the United States, had passed. Our thoughts and our
prayers are with those struggling to pick up the pieces on
the gulf coast following the hurricane. And, of course,
our thoughts and prayers are with the Chief Justice's
family.
I had the good fortune of working with the Chief on
several occasions, the first when I was head of the
Democratic Policy Committee. I told my Democratic Senators
I was going to ask the Chief Justice to come and talk to
us. They said he would never do that. I called him, and he
was happy to come. At that lunch, he displayed a great
command of the law, of course, a strong commitment to
judicial independence, and something that we didn't know
existed--a sharp sense of humor. Just a short time later,
I got to know him better when he presided over the
impeachment trial here in the Senate.
I am grateful to have worked with him, and in addition
have spoken to him on the telephone on several occasions
at his office and at his home.
As I have indicated, my condolences are with his family.
He will be missed. . . .
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will pay
its respects to the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Senators will be able and are encouraged to make
statements tomorrow morning relating to the passing of
Chief Justice Rehnquist.
We will be voting at noon tomorrow on a resolution which
expresses the sense of the Senate. The Senate will recess
during the funeral ceremonies as a further mark of
respect. As I mentioned earlier, we will begin
consideration of the Commerce, Justice and Science
appropriations bill on Thursday this week.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my
sincere condolences to the family of Chief Justice William
H. Rehnquist and to recognize his achievements during a
lifetime of public service.
Throughout his life, William H. Rehnquist served this
Nation with dignity and integrity, first in the Army Air
Corps during World War II and later as an Associate and
then Chief Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. For 33
years, Chief Justice Rehnquist was a fixture on the Court,
and he demonstrated both a love and a respect for the
institution. He led the Judicial Conference of the United
States with distinction, advocating for judicial
independence during his 18-year tenure as Chief Justice.
And even as his health declined in recent years, Chief
Justice Rehnquist continued to lead the Court, a testament
to his tenacity and character.
Although I did not always agree with his legal
decisions, I have deep respect for Chief Justice
Rehnquist's service to our Nation, and I join my
colleagues in honoring him today.
NOTIFICATION OF THE DEATH OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H.
REHNQUIST, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate
a communication from the Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States, the Honorable Antonin Scalia,
notifying the Senate of the death of the Chief Justice of
the United States, the late Honorable William H.
Rehnquist.
The message is as follows:
Supreme Court of the United States,
Washington, DC, September 6, 2005.
Hon. Richard B. Cheney,
President, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: This is to notify the Senate,
through you, that the Chief Justice of the United States
died in Arlington, Virginia, on Saturday, September 3,
2005.
Very truly yours,
Antonin Scalia,
Associate Justice.
Wednesday, September 7, 2005
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following
prayer:
Let us pray.
Eternal Spirit, King of kings and Lord of lords, we
thank You today for the gift of exemplary living,
particularly as we remember our Supreme Court's 16th Chief
Justice, William Rehnquist. We received inspiration from
his commitment to public service and from his desire to
invest his life in things that flourish beyond his
lifetime. We were challenged by his willingness to choose
duty over personal comfort.
As many mourn his death, remind us that one day we must
all stand before Your judgment seat, for You are the Chief
Judge of the universe. May the reality of our
accountability to You prompt us to live our lives for Your
glory.
Empower each Senator to listen to the whisper of
conscience as he or she labors for liberty. May his or her
first priority be to live for Your honor. Give all of us
the power to rule our spirits so that we may fulfill Your
purpose for our lives.
We pray in Your powerful Name. Amen.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, just a short while ago, the
Senate proceeded as a body to the U.S. Supreme Court to
pay final respect to the late Chief Justice William
Rehnquist. We continue this morning with tributes to the
Chief Justice. Senators will be able to come to the Senate
floor until 12 noon to make those statements.
Order of Procedure
I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon today, the
Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of a resolution
honoring the life of Chief Justice Rehnquist.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, Senators should be aware that
the next vote will occur at noon today. The Senate will
also recess early this afternoon during the funeral for
Chief Justice Rehnquist as a further mark of respect. . .
.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, last Saturday, in the wake of
one terrible loss, our Nation suffered another loss, a
quiet loss but one that was also deeply felt across the
land. We learned that William H. Rehnquist, the 16th Chief
Justice of the United States, had passed away. Karen and I
and the entire Senate family extend our deepest sympathies
to his family and to his friends. Our Nation mourns the
loss of a great leader.
William Rehnquist was an American hero--a World War II
veteran, a lifelong public servant, a brilliant legal
mind, and a jurist of historic consequence. He was an
inspiration to all who knew him. This was especially true
in his final months as he stoically fought the cancer that
would eventually claim his life.
Since October 2004, when the Chief Justice announced he
had thyroid cancer, his chin remained up and his mind
focused and devoted. Today, that optimism, that
determination, that strength of spirit in purpose remain
an encouragement to us all.
I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to get to
know William Rehnquist during my tenure in the Senate. I
am honored to call him a friend. But even more, perhaps
the most one can say of any leader, I simply feel blessed
to have lived in his time and in the country that so
benefited from his wisdom.
William Rehnquist was born on October 1, 1924, in
Milwaukee, WI. The son of William Benjamin Rehnquist, a
paper salesman, and Margery Peck Rehnquist, a multilingual
translator, he spent his childhood in the Milwaukee suburb
of Shorewood, WI, where he attended public schools. Even
as a young student, William Rehnquist expressed interest
in public service, telling others he wanted to ``change
the government.'' Well, he did exactly that.
William Rehnquist grew up in an era marked by grave
challenges and extraordinary triumphs. He saw our Nation
rise from the depths of the Great Depression to defeat the
threat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
On December 7, 1941, when Pearl Harbor was bombed,
William Rehnquist was 17 years old. Shortly thereafter, he
signed up to fight, joining the Army Air Corps, serving at
home and abroad from 1943 to 1946.
After the Armed Forces, with the help of the GI bill,
William Rehnquist went on to college. At Stanford, he
earned bachelor's and master's degrees in political
science and graduated Phi Beta Kappa. But his academic
journey was far from over.
He took a brief hiatus from Stanford, heading east to
Harvard for a second master's degree, this time in
government. In 1950, he returned to Stanford ready for law
school and the defining point in his life. From Stanford,
William Rehnquist would graduate first in his class that
included none other than his future colleague on the High
Court, Sandra Day O'Connor.
As a law student, he was known for his astute ability to
defend conservatism and for his bright legal mind. One of
his professors described William Rehnquist as ``the
outstanding student of his law school generation.'' This
same professor would later introduce him to Supreme Court
Justice Robert Jackson. In a private interview, William
Rehnquist convinced Justice Jackson to award him with a
coveted clerkship with the Supreme Court, despite
Rehnquist's initial thoughts that he had been ``written
[off] as a total loss'' by Justice Jackson.
After completing his clerkship, he married Natalie
Cornell. The couple settled in Phoenix, where they raised
three children--James, Janet, and Nancy--and where Justice
Rehnquist would practice law for 16 years.
As a young lawyer, William Rehnquist was known to wear
loud shirts and ties, prompting even President Nixon to
refer to him as ``the guy [who] dressed like a clown.''
But clearly, Nixon was impressed by what he saw on the
inside of the young lawyer from Phoenix. President Nixon
selected Rehnquist to serve as the Assistant Attorney
General for the Department of Justice's Office of Legal
Counsel.
In 1971, President Nixon nominated William Rehnquist
again, this time to replace Justice John Marshall Harlan
as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. William
Rehnquist was overwhelmingly confirmed by a Democratic
Senate by a vote of 68 yeas and 26 nays.
In 1986, President Reagan nominated William Rehnquist as
Chief Justice, and the Senate, by a wide margin once
again, confirmed him to serve as the 16th Chief Justice of
the highest court in the land. Today I echo what my good
friend and former colleague, Senator Bob Dole said of the
Chief Justice during that confirmation debate two decades
ago. He was a man of ``unquestioned integrity,
incorruptibility, fairness, and courage.''
During my tenure in the Senate, I had the privilege of
getting to know the Chief Justice, or ``the Chief'' as the
law clerks called him. And since our first introduction, I
found William Rehnquist to be thoughtful, intelligent,
and, I must say, quite humorous.
A skilled writer and avid historian, Chief Justice
Rehnquist is the author of a number of books on Supreme
Court history and the American legal system. Many articles
have been written about William Rehnquist and his
successes as Chief Justice of the United States, and in
almost every one of these articles, he is praised for his
superb ability to efficiently manage the Court.
Speaking to this point, Supreme Court Justice Byron R.
White once said:
I have never ceased to marvel how one person could
possibly carry out all of the tasks given the Chief
Justice and yet also decide cases and write opinions as
the rest of us do. Yet Chief Justices do them with
regularity and, of the three Chief Justices with whom I
have served, the man who now sits in the center chair in
the courtroom . . . seems to me to be the least stressed
by his responsibilities and to be the most efficient
manager of his complicated schedule.
A former adviser to the Chief Justice said that Justice
White's comments mirrored his own observations. He said
that William Rehnquist's rigorous work ethic and
dedication to efficiency is reflected on his staff, which
he, in fact, reduced when he became Chief Justice, relying
on only three clerks, although he was authorized to have
four.
The former adviser described William Rehnquist as a man
who could do twice the work of the average judge in half
the time. Having worked alongside William Rehnquist on the
Smithsonian's Board of Regents, I couldn't agree more. I
treasure the days we spent together on this Board of
Regents. In his capacity as the chancellor of the
Smithsonian, he served as chairman of the Smithsonian's
Board of Regents. I, in that capacity, saw firsthand the
Chief Justice's commitment to that institution, the
Smithsonian, attending every meeting despite his very busy
day job at the Court. He even hosted planning meetings for
board staff and liaisons of the Supreme Court in the
Natalie Cornell Rehnquist Dining Room, named after his
late wife of 38 years. Recently, he brought the entire
Court to the Smithsonian's American History Museum to see
the Brown v. Board of Education exhibit.
As he did on the Court, since the Chief Justice became
chancellor, he emphasized the importance of efficient
management in the Smithsonian's affairs, and he brought a
certain sense of distinction to our work for the
Smithsonian. Moreover, he inspired me to always be mindful
of our duty to history, our place in preserving the
strength of this Nation we serve.
In recent months, while the ongoing debate in the Senate
regarding judicial nominations was occurring, I thought a
lot about our Federal courts and our judges. I have often
wondered what are the most important qualities to look for
in an individual who is being considered for a lifetime
appointment on the courts. I have looked to the Chief, and
I have seen those qualities embodied in his approach to
the law--commitment to judicial restraint, fairness,
integrity, impartiality, even temperament, openmindedness,
and respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.
What is more, William Rehnquist was a man not only of
high intellect but common sense--a unique combination
reflected in the clarity of his opinions.
I witnessed firsthand William Rehnquist's intelligence,
his temperament, and his commitment to equal justice under
the law when he became only the second Chief Justice to
preside over a Presidential impeachment in the trial of
President Bill Clinton.
A friend of mine and a former administrative assistant
to the Chief Justice said:
What impressed me most about the manner in which he
presided over the impeachment trial was his astute and
facile recognition of and respect for the traditions and
rules of the Senate. I knew he would provide impartial
leadership but he also adjusted his superb management
skills appropriately to the Senate's traditions. At the
conclusion of the trial he was praised by the Leaders of
both parties. It was another demonstration of the rare
combination of high intellect and common sense that he
possesses.
To this day, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
continue to remember the Chief Justice for his efficient
managerial skills and his steadfast respect for the Senate
during the impeachment trial. In an atmosphere of
partisanship, the Chief Justice was a constant reminder of
the solemn legal duties our Constitution requires of the
Senate.
The Chief loved the Court. He held a deep respect for
the law and its traditions, and in turn his colleagues,
even those with different judicial philosophies, held a
deep respect for him.
A former colleague who often decided cases differently
than the Chief Justice, Justice Harry Blackmun praised
William Rehnquist as a ``splendid administrator'' and
often testified to his fairness and commitment to the
coherence and cohesion of the Court.
Once the Court's leading liberal, Justice William
Brennan called Chief Justice Rehnquist ``the most all-
around successful'' Chief that he had known and described
him as ``meticulously fair.''
Another liberal on the Court, Justice Thurgood Marshall,
described him as ``a great Chief Justice.''
In his 19 years as Chief Justice of the highest court in
the land, Chief Justice Rehnquist never placed himself on
a higher plane than his colleagues. To fellow Justices,
his law clerks and secretaries, he was sensitive, humble,
and ever respectful.
I am confident that the President's nominee to the Chief
Justice's seat, Judge John Roberts, will bring the same
dignity to the job and earn the same level of respect from
his colleagues. Judge Roberts, after all, learned from the
best. From 1980 to 1981, he was clerk to then-Associate
Justice Rehnquist.
Having come to know John Roberts these last few weeks,
there is no doubt in my mind that he has the skill, the
mind, the philosophy, and the temperament to lead the
Supreme Court.
With the passing over the weekend of Chief Justice
Rehnquist, the Supreme Court loses one of the most
prolific scholars and brilliant legal minds ever to sit on
the Federal bench. His passing marks a sad day for
America, but it is also a day to reflect on our great
fortune to have had William Rehnquist in the service of
our Nation.
For over 33 years, Chief Justice Rehnquist generously
offered America his brilliant mind, his unwavering
leadership, and his fair and impartial judgment. He was
the embodiment of all of the ideal qualities of a judge,
and his humility, wisdom, and superb managerial skills
allowed him to become one of the most memorable,
influential, and well-respected Supreme Court Justices in
our history.
Many feel that history will remember the Chief for
presiding over the Senate during the impeachment trial,
for his participation in landmark decisions, for his
perseverance in fulfilling his duties through ailing
health. I believe William Rehnquist will be most
remembered for his magnificent leadership and management,
his ability to build consensus, his compassion and respect
for others, and his fair and impartial review of each and
every case that came before the Court. The imprint of
William Rehnquist's gavel will not fade fast. No, it is
indelibly stamped upon the face of American history and
the legacy of the law we uphold. America was blessed to
have William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and today he
enters the history books as one of the greatest Chief
Justices ever to serve on the Supreme Court of the United
States.
May God bless William Rehnquist and may God bless the
United States of America.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was a high school student in
a place called Basic High School in Henderson, NV. I was a
boy about 16 years old, and Mrs. Robinson came into the
classroom. She was a part-time counselor and a full-time
government teacher. She pulled me out of the class and she
said, I have looked at all of your reports and you should
go to law school.
I had never met a lawyer, had never even seen a
courthouse, let alone been in one, but I accepted Mrs.
Robinson's word that I should go to law school. From that
day forward, that is what I set my mind to do. I came back
here to go to law school. I was a full-time student at
George Washington University, went to school in the
daytime and worked as a Capitol policeman in the
nighttime.
Still having never been in a courthouse, as a law
student in an appellate practice course I was taking, the
students were invited to go into the Supreme Court to
listen to a Supreme Court argument. I can remember going
there. The case the professor chose was not one that
sounds very exciting. It certainly did not sound very
exciting to me at the time. It did not involve some
spectacular criminal case. It involved a case called Baker
v. Carr. The first time I was ever in a courthouse I
listened to one of the most important, significant Supreme
Court arguments in the history of the country because
those lawyers debating this case, these issues of law,
were there to talk about the one man-one vote doctrine,
which the U.S. Supreme Court a few months later, after
having heard these arguments, decided that we in the
United States would be bound by one man, one vote.
As a result of that, reapportionment took place in State
legislatures and, of course, in the United States through
the Federal courts. In the States where the legislature
did not follow the one man-one vote rule, the courts took
over.
As I look back, I was so fortunate to be able to have my
first exposure to the law in the place where I later
became a member of the Supreme Court bar. Having heard
that case is something I will always remember.
I was a trial lawyer, and I have argued cases before the
Nevada Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit, but I never
argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. I wish I had
had that opportunity.
Having heard Baker v. Carr those many years ago, I have
never forgotten it. That is why it has been so pleasant
for me to develop a personal relationship with some of the
Supreme Court Justices, one of whom was the man whose
funeral I will go to today at 2, William Rehnquist.
I said earlier and I will say again, I had a tour of
duty as chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee and
every Thursday there is an off-the-record discussion that
takes place in the Senate with Democratic Senators, and we
always try to come up with things that will interest the
Senators. I said to a number of my colleagues I wanted to
invite William Rehnquist to come to the Democratic Policy
luncheon and they said, no, he is a dyed-in-the-wool
Republican, he is partisan, and he will not come anyway.
I picked up the telephone and in a matter of a minute or
two he was on the line. I said, Mr. Justice, would you
come to this policy luncheon? You will talk for 5 or 10
minutes, and we will ask questions.
Yes, I would like to do that.
He came over to the LBJ Room and it was one of the best
luncheons we ever had. He answered all the questions. As I
reflect on Chief Justice Rehnquist coming to that
Democratic Policy luncheon, the thing I remember more than
anything else is how funny he was. He was a man physically
large in stature with a biting sense of humor.
I felt so comfortable having him preside over the
impeachment trial. That was also kind of an awkward time
for me. I had just been selected as the assistant
Democratic leader. I had this seat right here. I had never
sat so close to what was going on before and I felt so
uncomfortable sitting here. My first tour of duty in the
Senate in that seat was as a Senator as part of the
impeachment trial of President Clinton.
Of course, I visited with him, talked to him when he
kept getting up. He had a bad back and he suffered a lot
from physical pain for many years as a result of his back.
He would get up every 20 minutes or so and stand and walk
around his chair. I had a number of very nice, warm
conversations with him at that time.
The conversation I will remember beyond all other
conversations with the Chief Justice, there was so much
speculation in the newspapers about how he was sick and
was he going to step down and would it be this Monday or
the next Monday or when was it going to be. So in that I
felt comfortable and had spoken to him on the telephone a
number of occasions, I called him at his home and I said,
I am sorry to bother you at home. He was not well. I said,
the simple reason I have called you is to say, do not
resign.
He said, I am not going to.
I am not going to talk about all that was said during
the call, but I would say he told me he was not going to
resign. I will always remember that telephone conversation
with the Chief Justice of the United States. I am
confident I did the right thing in calling him. I did not
tell any of my colleagues. I did not tell my family. I did
not tell anybody, but I picked up the telephone and I
called him, and I am glad I did.
So I join with the distinguished majority leader in
spreading on the record of this Senate the accolades for
this good man. He was very politically conservative, so I
understand. He served as a lawyer for 16 years after he
graduated first in his class at Stanford Law School, and I
have a great amount of affection for that law school. One
of my boys went to Stanford. It was a wonderful place to
go to school. He served in the Army Air Corps. He was Phi
Beta Kappa. That was not enough education for him. He got
a second master's degree at Harvard University after
having gotten a master's degree at Stanford.
I am sorry that he is not going to be on the Court any
more because I thought he was an outstanding
administrator. He spoke for the Federal judges with
strength and clarity. When we kept piling stuff on Federal
judges to give them jurisdiction to do things, he
complained about it. He said they work too hard, they have
too much to do. So we are going to miss his voice.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, it is my privilege to
join others in discussing the life and career of the late
Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Chief Justice Rehnquist
was only the 16th Chief Justice in American history. John
Jay was the first, sworn in on October 1789. Many of us
had an opportunity to go over and pay our respects, over
in the Supreme Court a few moments ago, and had a chance
to look at the busts of those Chief Justices.
Chief Justice Rehnquist filled the role defined for him
by our Founding Fathers with wisdom and with dignity.
Millions of Americans honor him for his legacy of
achievement. When I went home last night, I noticed a long
line of people waiting to file past the casket and pay
their respects to this wonderful man.
I first met the Chief Justice in 1969 here in
Washington. At the time, he was Assistant Attorney General
for the Office of Legal Counsel. I was a young legislative
aide to a Senator named Marlow Cook, who represented the
Commonwealth of Kentucky. Senator Cook was on the
Judiciary Committee and this was a period in which there
were a couple of highly contentious Supreme Court
nominations. Judge Clement Haynsworth of the Fourth
Circuit, who was subsequently defeated, and District Judge
Harold Carswell from Florida, who was also defeated. So
President Nixon had not only one but two nominations at
the Supreme Court defeated.
Bill Rehnquist, which is what I called him in those
days, was the guy who sort of crafted the speeches and
helped us, helped the Republicans and as many Democrats
who were interested in supporting those two nominees--
helped us craft the speeches and did the important work of
helping us express ourselves. My boss ended up supporting
Haynsworth and opposing Carswell, so I was not working
with Bill Rehnquist on the second nomination.
He was an extraordinary person: Dedicated, hard working,
the smartest lawyer I had ever been around at that point,
and even after all these years I would still say he was
the smartest lawyer I had ever been around; a keen
intellect with a very sharp mind. He was also, as others
have pointed out and will point out this morning, a kind
and personable man, which he remained even while rising to
the foremost position in American jurisprudence.
After working for Senator Cook, I returned to Kentucky
in January 1971, thinking I was sort of through with
Washington. Toward the end of the year, to my surprise and
pleasure, President Nixon nominated Bill Rehnquist to be
on the Supreme Court. So, on my own nickel, I came back to
Washington for a month and worked on his confirmation--
just as a volunteer, and did odd jobs and helped do
whatever was thought to be appropriate by those who were
officially in charge of his confirmation. But it was a
thrill to see him confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Later, in 1986, when President Reagan elevated Justice
Rehnquist to the Chief Justice position, by then I was a
Member of this body and, in fact, a member of the
Judiciary Committee. So that was my second opportunity to
work on a William Rehnquist nomination to the Supreme
Court. Of course, I was proud to be involved in that and
very proud to vote to confirm him.
The Chief Justice served our country with his
characteristic wisdom and grace. After leading the Court
for 19 years, he was the longest serving Chief Justice
since 1910. He was only the fifth Chief Justice in our
Nation's history to have previously served as an Associate
Justice. He exemplified the highest virtue for a Justice:
He entered each case with an open mind, free of bias,
never prejudging the case before the decision was made. In
fact, some of his decisions over the years surprised
observers and proved that he was willing to rethink
opinions he may have once held. Actually, that is a good
thing.
He reminded us that judges should be like umpires--never
taking sides, just fairly applying the rules.
He leaves behind him a legacy that will be studied for
generations. I would submit that a chief component of that
legacy will be his steering the Supreme Court back toward
the principle of federalism, which, alongside separation
of powers, stands as one of the two structural principles
undergirding our Constitution. Chief Justice Rehnquist
expressed that view in dissent after dissent in the early
years when he was on the Court until, with time, his
dissenting views became majority ones. Because of his
clear understanding of the underlying purpose of
federalism, he worked to establish a jurisprudence that
guards against untrammeled Federal power and helps ensure
that decisions that are purely local in nature will remain
in the hands of the citizens who must, of course, abide by
them.
The Chief Justice earned a reputation for being a fair
and even-handed leader of the High Court. Former Justice
William Brennan, who was frequently on the opposite side
in cases, said Chief Justice Rehnquist was ``meticulously
fair in assigning opinions.'' He went on to say that since
Rehnquist's ascension to the Chief Justice position, ``I
can't begin to tell you how much better all of us feel . .
. and how fond all of us are of him personally.'' That was
Justice Brennan, with whom Justice Rehnquist rarely
agreed.
In this recent age of many 5-to-4 decisions, it is all
the more extraordinary that the Chief Justice created such
a harmonious court. The late Justice Thurgood Marshall,
who served with the Chief Justice from 1972 to 1991, said
simply that William Rehnquist is ``a great Chief
Justice.''
As Chief Justice, William Rehnquist was the same honest
and upright man I had observed when I first met him back
in 1969. In his final months as Chief, he reminded us all
once again what it means to serve with dignity and honor,
as he persevered through his fight with cancer. Who was
not moved to see the concept of ``duty'' personified on
January 20, 2005, when, under extraordinary physical
duress, he administered the oath of office to the
President of the United States?
This Nation owes Chief Justice Rehnquist a debt that can
never be fully repaid. He served his country in combat
with the Army Air Corps during World War II, as a law
clerk to Associate Justice Robert Jackson, as an Assistant
Attorney General, as Associate Justice, and finally as
Chief Justice of the United States. Throughout it all he
stood for the rule of law and the upholding of the
principles that this Republic holds dear. In my opinion,
he was the most consequential Chief Justice since John
Marshall. I repeat: the most consequential Chief Justice
since John Marshall.
Elaine and I extend our sympathies to his family, his
daughters Janet and Nancy, his son James, his sister Jean,
and his nine grandchildren.
As miraculous a document as it is, the Constitution is
only words on paper. It requires men and women of
principle to see its meaning and spirit made real. William
Rehnquist was one of those persons. Our grateful Nation
will always remember his heroic service and his devotion
to duty until the very end.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, let me thank the
distinguished Democratic whip for letting me precede him
in making this statement.
It was with great sadness that I learned of Chief
Justice Rehnquist's passing, and even sadder when I joined
the Senate to pay our last respects to him this morning.
I first met Bill Rehnquist in 1952. We were both young
lawyers here in Washington, DC. We each had taken jobs
here in Washington after finishing law school and in the
course of many months became very good friends. In fact,
my first date with my first wife was double-dating with
Bill Rehnquist.
We had both served in the Army Air Corps during World
War II, and we were comrades in the deepest sense of the
word. I respected Bill personally then and professionally.
He was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Jackson.
He took his responsibilities to the Court and to the
American people very seriously. Bill Rehnquist was devoted
to the rule of law and to our democratic system.
In many of our Nation's most turbulent moments, we
relied upon Chief Justice Rehnquist's commitment to the
law to steer us toward calmer waters. History will
remember his evenhandedness and his impartiality in the
face of tough decisions. During the impeachment process,
which he chaired in the Senate, the Chief demonstrated his
fairness and his commitment to follow precisely our
Constitution and the precedents of the past. It was during
that time that I once again had the privilege of sharing
lunches and coffees and just talking off the floor with my
great friend of the past.
Bill Rehnquist was a humble and gracious man, as we all
know. Among his clerks and among his friends, he was known
just as ``the Chief,'' and he was guided by the belief
that no man is more important than the nation or the
institution he serves. It was this belief that guided his
efforts to narrow the concept of judicial activism and
restore our system to its constitutional roots.
I didn't always agree with Bill Rehnquist. As a matter
of fact, as young lawyers, we had a lot of arguments. But
I knew he was a brilliant man, and he proved to be a great
administrator for our Supreme Court. Those of us who knew
the Chief respected his commitment to law and valued his
advice and counsel. His friends were from all walks of
life. He counted law clerks, Senators, Congressmen, and
Presidents among his friends.
He embodied the lines in the Rudyard Kipling poem,
``If.'' Bill Rehnquist could ``walk with kings'' without
losing ``the common touch.''
Those of you who knew him will miss the Chief's wry
sense of humor. As a matter of fact, inspired by a costume
from his favorite Gilbert and Sullivan operetta, he is the
only Justice who added four gold stripes to each sleeve of
his black Supreme Court robe.
He also loved a practical joke. One of my favorite
stories is an April Fools' prank played on Chief Justice
Warren Burger, with whom I also served at the Department
of Justice. Bill put a life-size photo of Warren Burger on
the front steps of the Supreme Court Building with a sign
asking tourists to pay $1 to get a picture with the Chief
Justice. Remember, it was April Fools' Day. He then drove
the Chief Justice by those steps so he could see his
reaction to this prank.
But he said once to me, ``The Chief Justice brings to
the office no one but himself.'' This may be true, but
this Chief Justice leaves office with the gratitude of our
entire Nation. You can see it today in those long lines
over by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has lost a
great legal mind, the country has lost a devoted public
servant, and I have lost another good friend.
Catherine and I extend our deepest sympathies to Bill's
family and friends. He will be missed by all--greatly by
me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, very much. I will try to be brief
and to the point.
Chief Justice Rehnquist was a person I probably
disagreed with in most political arguments. I read his
opinions, and I realized that we just looked at the world
in a different way. Yet I liked him. I liked him a lot.
I had two direct contacts with him as a U.S. Senator.
The first time was as a new Member of the Senate and as a
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I received
an invitation to come across the street, which is unusual,
from the Senate to the Supreme Court for lunch. It was
with a Federal judicial council. I was flattered and
accepted the invitation. I then started asking the staff:
Who are these people? They said: They are Federal judges
from all across the United States. They gather together
infrequently across the street for lunch in the Supreme
Court, in a large chamber with the Chief Justice. They
have invited you to come and speak to them.
Reflecting on my storied legal career as a small-town
lawyer in Springfield, IL, and the fact that I didn't set
the world on fire in law school, I wondered why they would
ever invite me. Then it dawned on me. I was the ranking
member on the Court Administrations Subcommittee of the
Judiciary Committee which had responsibility for
determining the salaries of Federal judges. So they were
going to entertain me for lunch and pay close attention to
all of my views in the hopes that I would listen carefully
when they recommended increases in judicial salaries. That
is exactly what happened. But the circumstances of that
meeting were amazing.
It was a large room and a huge table. There were two
chairs empty as I walked into the room with all of these
Federal judges in every direction. I sat in one of them.
Then we waited quietly, and the door of the back room
opened and everyone stood as Chief Justice Rehnquist came
in to sit next to me. As he sat down, I thought to myself:
There isn't a single law professor I ever had in school
who would ever dream I would be sitting next to the Chief
Justice, but I am certain my mother looking down from
Heaven thought it was entirely appropriate that her son
was sitting next to the Chief Justice of the United
States.
The second time was the impeachment trial in the Senate,
which was presided over by Chief Justice Rehnquist. There
is a small room called the President's Room. It is a
historic chamber, and people often go in there for quick
meetings off the floor. It became the Chief Justice's
office when he was here for the impeachment trial. It was
a curious setup because as you walked by there, he had a
desk that was literally smack dab in the center of the
room with the chair behind it, and I do not recall that
there was any other furniture in the room. He just kind of
sat there isolated, like this little island. I would walk
by and glance in there from time to time.
Finally, I got the courage to walk in and talk to him.
He dropped what he was doing and started talking right
away. I was impressed. The man was entirely approachable,
personable, and funny. He had a ton of questions about the
Senate because he had been for over 30 years at the
Supreme Court and the Senate was brand new to him. He
asked basic questions and joked about the rollcalls. He
said, ``I love it when we have a rollcall, and it will be
Bayh `aye' and Snowe `no.' '' He said, ``I just love to
listen as you call the roll here in the Senate.''
We had a great conversation. He gave me a book he had
written about the impeachment process. He agreed to
autograph a few things. I really liked him a lot
personally.
I can understand why those who disagreed with him
politically still thought the world of Chief Justice
William Rehnquist. He was a man dedicated to public
service. I respected him so much for that.
As others have said, when he showed up in frail health
at the second inauguration of President George W. Bush on
a blustery, cold day to administer the oath, it was a
great gesture on his part. It showed his personal
commitment to his job as Chief Justice, his love of his
Nation, and his responsibility. We are going to miss him.
Very few men and women ever get the chance to serve as
Chief Justice.
The Rehnquist court was a court which because of his
leadership will be remembered for many years to come.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I will share a few
personal thoughts about Chief Justice Rehnquist. I came to
appreciate Justice Rehnquist as a young prosecutor. I was
an assistant U.S. attorney, and tried a lot of cases and
was involved in a lot of cases and had to read Supreme
Court opinions on criminal law. I was impressed with his
writings. It touched me in many ways. I felt he was
speaking the truth when other Justices were missing and
not understanding the reality of law enforcement in
America.
This was in the mid-1970s, when our crime was increasing
at an exponential rate. We had double-digit percentage
increases in crime in the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1950s,
we did not lock the door of our house, and we left our
keys in the car. People did not worry about crime. It
became a growing problem. At the same time crime was
surging, the Warren court handcuffed the police and their
ability to deal with it.
Justice Rehnquist, during the Warren court years, would
often write dissents. Sometimes he would be the lone
dissenter. I distinctly remember being in the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Mobile, AL, reading an opinion and
calling my colleagues to say: Look at this. At least one
Justice understands the reality of crime and law
enforcement in America.
He helped create a different approach to law and order
in America. Instead of ruling on emotion and politics, he
made his decisions based on the law and facts. In fact,
before he left office, cases he was dissenting 8 to 1, he
was winning a number of them 5 to 4 and 6 to 3. What an
accomplishment to see that happen over a lifetime. I never
would have thought it possible. I thought the trends were
against that. Being young, I never thought we would see
the pendulum swing back, but it did, and he played a key
role in that.
From my observations as a member of the Department of
Justice for nearly 15 years, as a member, now, of the
Senate Judiciary Committee for 8 years, where I currently
chair the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the
Courts, my humble opinion is Chief Justice Rehnquist is
one of the greatest Chief Justices ever to serve. Senator
McConnell said after John Marshall, but I don't know. I am
not sure any have served more ably.
He was also a great Associate Justice. He wrote clean,
succinct opinions that made sense. They were consistent
with the law of our country and our heritage.
He came to the Court when the Warren court was in full
bloom and judicial activism was at its apex. In case after
case, he was the lone member of that Court to sound the
alarm about the dangers that arise when a court detaches
itself from a principled and honest commitment to the
Constitution of the United States of America and the laws
we passed. He saw the dangers in that, and he dissented
many times--he joined with the majority many times, but he
dissented many times--on matters of great principle in an
intelligent and effective way.
He played a key role in the demise of judicial activism
as a dominant view of the Court. By ``judicial
activism''--I will paraphrase Senator Hatch's definition
of it--it means when a judge allows their personal or
political views about what is good policy or bad policy to
affect their rulings in a case. It is not faithful to the
Constitution when you twist the words of the Constitution
or of a statute so they come out to mean what you would
like them to in order to achieve the result that you
prefer in a given case. Justice Rehnquist loved our
Constitution, the one that we have, the good parts of it
and the parts he may not agree with. He loved every
section and respected each one of them. He followed them
and was faithful to them.
He understood liberty in America is dependent on order.
Look what is happening, so sadly, in New Orleans: police
are threatened, doctors and nurses could not get out to
help or rescue people because order broke down. The
Founders of our Republic never doubted the Government and
the law enforcement of the United States of America. The
States and counties and cities had to have certain
authority to maintain order or we would never have
liberty. This extreme commitment to libertarian views can
undermine the basic order necessary to allow liberty to
flourish in our individual capability first. He understood
that very critically.
An example of the dangers he saw on the Court would be
in death penalty cases. Chief Justice Rehnquist, as
Associate Justice and as Chief, fully understood the
Constitution makes at least eight references to capital
crimes, to not being able to take someone's life without
due process; at least eight references were made in that
great document to the death penalty. How could the
Constitution declare the death penalty was
unconstitutional when it absolutely approved it?
Two Justices dissented in every single death penalty
case, saying they thought it was cruel and unusual
punishment. What a weird, unprincipled dangerous
interpretation of the Constitution. Justice Rehnquist
stood against that tide, often as a lone Associate
Justice.
Until now, people have come to realize that the
Constitution and laws of this country allow a State or the
Federal Government to have a death penalty, if they choose
to have it. If you do not like that, take it to your
legislative branch. The Constitution does not prohibit it,
for Heaven's sake. The Constitution explicitly authorizes
it.
He had a good understanding of church and state. I
remember Senator Reid, the distinguished majority leader
now, when he was the assistant leader under Thomas Daschle
during that year when they were in the majority, and the
Ninth Circuit struck down the Pledge of Allegiance, he
criticized the Ninth Circuit. I have been a big critic of
the Ninth Circuit, but I remember making remarks at that
time saying as big a critic of the Ninth Circuit and as
much of a critic of their striking down the Pledge of
Allegiance, I have to say many Supreme Court rulings on
separation of church and state are so extreme that could
well be justified under language of the U.S. Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court has given us a very confused
jurisprudence on what is a legitimate separation of church
and state in America.
We got to the point in one case, the Jaffree case from
Alabama, the Supreme Court, by a 6 to 3 majority, struck
down a moment of silence in a classroom. Justice Rehnquist
dissented in that case, as he consistently dissented
against some of the confused thinking that was there.
If this court had followed Justice Rehnquist's thoughts
and opinions on the question of separation of church and
state, we would not have the confusion we have today. We
would not have one case where the Ten Commandments in
Texas are OK and another case in Alabama where the Ten
Commandments are not OK. What kind of jurisprudence is
that? We need to get that straight. The Court has failed,
in my view, in establishment clause jurisprudence. But
Chief Justice Rehnquist has been a consistent and sound
and reasonable voice on how to strike the proper balance.
We need to go back and continue to read those opinions and
see if we cannot make them correct.
He also was a student of America. He wrote a number of
books, grand inquests about impeachments, before we had
the Clinton impeachment case in this body. He wrote a
book, ``All The Laws But One,'' that deals with the rule
of law in America in a time of crisis, and dealt with the
Civil War and other times in our country. He was a
historian who understood America, understood our
exceptional nature, our commitment to law and the
Constitution. He understood that deeply. Every day when he
went to work, every opinion he ever wrote was consistent
with his view and respect for America, her heritage, her
rule of law, and her Constitution.
He understood that States have certain powers in our
country. He understood that the Federal Government,
through the commerce clause, has broad power, but there
are limits to the reach of the commerce clause. It does
not cover every single matter the U.S. Senate may desire
to legislate on, to the extent that the Federal Government
controls even simple, discrete actions within a State. He
reestablished a respect for State law and State
sovereignty through a number of his federalism opinions.
Madam President, we have lost one of the Nation's great
Justices, a man who respected our Constitution, gave his
life to his country, his whole professional career. All of
us should be proud of that service and honor his memory.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise today with a heavy
heart. We have all watched in horror as the Gulf Coast has
been struck by what could be called the worst natural
disaster in our history.
Over the weekend, Chief Justice Rehnquist, who served
our Court and country with such distinction for 33 years,
and showed such bravery in the last months of his life,
passed away.
We have now lost nearly 2,000 young men and women in
Iraq, and we still do not have, in my opinion, a credible
plan, a mission, a timetable to achieve success and bring
our troops home. Gas prices are putting horrible strains
on most Americans.
There is a tremendous amount of anxiety in America
today. I feel it when I go home to California. We must
confront it immediately in the Senate, in the House, and,
yes, at the White House. . . .
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to a
good man whom I knew well, who was a great judge, the late
Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
His service and leadership on the Supreme Court, the
principles he consistently followed, and the steady hand
with which he guided the judiciary make him one of the
judiciary's very best.
William Hubbs Rehnquist served on the Supreme Court of
the United States for 33 years and almost 8 months.
He was the 8th longest serving of the Court's 108
members, having recently surpassed the tenure of the
legendary Justice Joseph Story.
He was the 4th longest serving of the Court's 16 Chief
Justices, and 1 of just 5 individuals to have served as
both Associate and Chief Justice.
William Rehnquist's service was a powerful mixture of
the personal and the professional.
He brought a kind of dignified practicality, or perhaps
it was practical dignity, to what is one of the most
formal and respected posts in the Federal Government.
William Rehnquist was the historian who could play a
practical joke, the defender of the judicial institution
who played poker with his colleagues.
We will miss this scholar and author, who also led an
annual Christmas carol sing-along for the Court's
employees.
Yesterday his former clerks surrounded his casket and
carried it past his former colleagues into the Court where
he lay in repose in a plain white pine casket. It was so
touching.
We were all touched by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
weeping at the loss of a man who had been a fellow law
student more than 50 years ago and was a fellow Justice
for the past 24. He was No. 1 in his class; she was No. 3.
They were close friends.
The respected legal analyst Stuart Taylor writes that
one attribute of greatness is being esteemed by one's
colleagues. Whether his fellow Justices voted with him or
against him on the cases before the Court, they all
cherished and esteemed him.
Liberal icons such as Justice William Brennan called
Chief Justice Rehnquist a breath of fresh air.
Justice Thurgood Marshall called him a great Chief
Justice.
Justice Lewis Powell said he had a good sense of humor
and was both generous and principled.
When President Nixon nominated William Rehnquist to be
an Associate Justice in 1971, Attorney General John
Mitchell said he expected Justice Rehnquist to be
independent.
Before the Judiciary Committee, the nominee pledged as
his fundamental commitment to totally disregard his own
personal beliefs when interpreting and applying the law.
Democratic Senator John McClellan of Arkansas, a member
of the Judiciary Committee, explained in the pages of the
New York Times why he supported what he called a
distinguished nominee.
He said that William Rehnquist would not contribute to
the trend of pursuing abstract goals driven by ideology
rather than law. As both Associate and Chief Justice,
William Rehnquist confirmed Senator McClellan's judgment.
Chief Justice Rehnquist strongly defended the
prerogatives of the judicial branch. This alone might give
pause to those who believe the judiciary was already too
strong.
But he coupled that commitment to institutional vigor
with a fidelity to constitutional rigor.
While insisting that the Court was the primary
interpreter of the Constitution, he did not join those who
said the Constitution's meaning ebbed and flowed with the
latest cultural and political fad.
Chief Justice Rehnquist understood that we entrust
interpretation of our laws to unelected judges only
because, as he had, they promise to keep their own moral
and political viewpoints on the sideline.
Over time, by example and leadership, this principle
helped him move the Court toward its traditionally modest
role within our system of government.
Commentators and reporters discussing the Chief
Justice's legacy almost reflexively use the moniker ``Lone
Ranger'' to describe the new Associate Justice Rehnquist.
He was sometimes a lonely dissenter on a Court that saw
itself as the vanguard of social change.
In that role, however, he reminded us of the fundamental
principles that should guide the judiciary.
Judges may not exercise judicial review based on their
personal opinions, preferences, or agendas. They must take
the Constitution as they find it and apply it as it is.
As new Justices joined the Court, and Chief Justice
Rehnquist continued articulating and applying such
traditional principles, he found himself with more
company.
While some talk of Chief Justices as able to bring
colleagues together in a particular case, Chief Justice
Rehnquist did so, patiently and steadily, over the long
haul of his entire tenure.
In a 1996 address at American University's Washington
College of Law, Chief Justice Rehnquist called judicial
independence the ``crown jewel'' of the American judicial
system.
He took this seriously on a personal as well as a
judicial level.
In this last year or so, William Hubbs Rehnquist lived
and finished life on this Earth in his own independent
way.
He shared what he wanted to share, when and how he chose
to share it.
He carried himself with dignity, in a way protecting his
privacy publicly, if such a thing is possible.
He was a good man and a good judge.
Our lives, individually as citizens and collectively as
a Nation, are much better for him having been among us.
I knew him personally. I know what a great man he was,
as far as I am concerned. I know what a supreme intellect
he was on that Court. I know what a decent, honorable,
honest person he was on that Court. I can remember one
lunch I had with Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia,
and Justice Kennedy. It was a terrific luncheon, filled
with intellectual repartee. It was a luncheon that I will
never forget. I can remember his smiling from time to time
as his colleagues made some of their points. He had this
wry sense of humor that I suppose came from the people
that he was born and raised with in his own State. This is
a man of tremendous, inestimable talent, intellect, and
ability. But he was warm. He was kind. He was decent. The
only time I saw any flare for the unusual was the stripes
on his black robe. That was done tongue in cheek, to just
kind of lampoon some of the overseriousness some of us
sometimes have with regard to the Supreme Court.
William Rehnquist was a good father. His daughter Janet
worked with us on my staff for a short time. I think the
world of her. She is a good person. The other offspring of
Chief Justice Rehnquist are also good people. I knew Chief
Justice Rehnquist's wife who preceded him in death. She
was a beautiful, lovely human being, to whom he gave great
deference. This was a man who counted. This was a Chief
Justice who made a difference. This is a person whom I
respect and whom I care for.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today we remember the life
and dedication of one of the most influential leaders of
the U.S. Supreme Court.
William H. Rehnquist, 16th Chief Justice of the United
States, passed away on Saturday, September 3, 2005. A
midwesterner, Rehnquist's service to our country dates
back to March 1943 when he was drafted into the U.S. Army
Air Corps, the equivalent of today's U.S. Air Force. He
served in World War II until 1946.
After his time in the military, Rehnquist began his
academic journey under the GI bill at Stanford University,
where he earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree,
and ultimately graduated first in his class at the
Stanford Law School. After clerking for Justice Robert H.
Jackson, Rehnquist spent the next 16 years in private
practice in Arizona.
In 1971, President Nixon nominated William Rehnquist to
be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. As Associate
Justice, Rehnquist was nicknamed the ``Lone Ranger'' for
his many lone dissents on the nine-member Court.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan elevated William
Rehnquist to Chief Justice of the United States. In that
role, Rehnquist became known for his ability to foster and
retain collegiality among Associate Justices with widely
differing views on the issues before the Court. He was an
outstanding leader of the judicial branch of our
Government.
Those of us in the Senate probably remember him best for
his service during the impeachment trial for President
Clinton. He presided over that historic event with dignity
and decorum.
Over the past year, as he battled cancer, Chief Justice
Rehnquist was as determined and sharp as ever, doing his
job faithfully until the day that he passed away.
Today, we remember the Chief Justice's passion,
dedication, and brilliance. And we also remember his great
sense of humor. Bill Rehnquist will be sorely missed by
his family, his friends, and his country.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize
and honor one of our country's greatest judicial leaders,
a noble public servant, the 16th Chief Justice of the
United States, William Hubbs Rehnquist. For the past 33
years, the last 19 of which as its leader, Chief Justice
Rehnquist served the Supreme Court with honor, wisdom, and
keen judgment. His record will be remembered as one of
ideological dedication and devotion in a court of
consensus and collegiality.
A native of Milwaukee, WI, William Rehnquist first
answered his country's call to service in World War II by
serving in the Army Air Corps as a weather observer in
North Africa from 1943 to 1946. Upon his return, he earned
his bachelor's and master's degrees in political science
from Stanford University in 1948, and a master's degree in
government from Harvard University in 1950. He earned his
L.L.B. from Stanford in 1952, graduating first in his
class, a class that included his future Supreme Court
colleague Sandra Day O'Connor.
Chief Justice Rehnquist's first experience with the
Supreme Court came when he clerked for Associate Supreme
Court Justice Robert Jackson. Rehnquist observed during
this time at the Court what he would later describe as the
``expansion of federal power at the expense of State
power.''
After his clerkship, Rehnquist moved to Phoenix, AZ,
where he practiced law in the private sector for more than
15 years. During this time, he became involved in
politics; and when President Nixon was elected in 1968,
Rehnquist was asked to serve as Assistant Attorney General
for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.
Three years later, in 1971, President Nixon nominated
Rehnquist to replace Justice John Marshall Harlan on the
U.S. Supreme Court.
From his early years as an Associate Justice through his
years as the Court's leader, Chief Justice Rehnquist
chartered a course to reestablish the important principle
of federalism, an integral part of our Nation's
constitutional structure. In cases such as National League
of Cities v. Usery in 1976 through U.S. v. Lopez in 1995,
his opinions aimed to protect the role of the States
within the Federal system by recognizing that our
government is one of enumerated rights and dual
sovereignty.
Though a strong and vigorous advocate for his beliefs,
Chief Justice Rehnquist was always respectful of his
colleagues and committed to the rule of law, never
allowing politics or infighting to threaten his Court. All
of us in the Senate got to know Chief Justice Rehnquist
when he presided over the impeachment trial of President
William Clinton. He was a decisive, but not intrusive
arbiter. His insightful observations about the operation
of the Senate were both serious and humorous. A profound
defender of the Constitution and a staunch protector of
liberty, Chief Justice Rehnquist has left behind a legacy
of thoughtfulness and quiet intellect, and will be
remembered as one of our Nation's greatest judicial
leaders.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I was sad to hear of Chief
Justice Rehnquist's passing, but I want to share my
gratitude for his service. He exceeded all but seven
Justices by the length of his 33 years on the Supreme
Court Bench. President Nixon nominated him to be the 100th
Supreme Court Justice in 1971. Fourteen years later,
President Reagan nominated him to serve as Chief Justice.
In his tenure as Chief Justice, he oversaw benchmark cases
and events that helped to shape the Supreme Court and the
country as we know it today. His efficient management of
the Court and careful interpretation of the Constitution
provide a good example for future Chief Justices.
He was a very learned man, interested in a wide range of
topics and pleasant to be around. In 1952, he graduated
first in his law school class at Stanford. In addition to
his law degree, he held master's degrees in political
science from Stanford and Harvard.
He left law school and moved to Washington, DC, to clerk
at the Supreme Court, a place where he would eventually
spend over a third of his life.
At times our lives intersected. During the impeachment
trial of President Clinton, I presided on the Senate floor
just before Chief Justice Rehnquist took the presiding
officer's chair--and then I took over each day as he left
the chair. I also presided when he was escorted out of the
Chamber following the end of the trial. I enjoyed reading
his book about civil liberties in wartime and his book
about the history of impeachments, which I was fortunate
enough to get him to sign for me.
Now in the wake of his death and one of the worst
natural disasters in U.S. history, the Senate will soon
move to fill the vacancies on the Court. People are going
through some hard times in our country. Chief Justice
Rehnquist knew about hard times.
He returned to the bench after being diagnosed and
treated for cancer. He fought bravely to finish his job
and spurned the rumors of retirement this summer. He
stated that he would continue as long as his health
permits. And he did. I admire him for it.
We also must continue to do our job by holding hearings
and then voting on the President's nominees to the court.
If we keep the political posturing to a minimum, we should
have plenty of time to fill the spot of the man who held
it for so long and so well.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today we mourn Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist, who faithfully served the
Supreme Court and our Nation for 33 years--19 of them as
Chief Justice. That tenure made him the fourth longest
serving Chief Justice in the history of our Nation,
surpassed only by Chief Justices Melville Weston Fuller,
Roger B. Taney, and John Marshall. He was also the fifth
longest serving Justice in our history. Walter Dellinger,
former acting Solicitor General in the Clinton
administration, has suggested that Chief Justice Rehnquist
will be judged by history as one of the three most
influential Chief Justices, together with Marshall and
Chief Justice Earl Warren. We have truly lost a historic
figure.
It is with pride, then, that we in Wisconsin claim Chief
Justice Rehnquist as a native son. He was born in our
State, and Wisconsin was his first home. He grew up in
Shorewood, a suburb of Milwaukee, and graduated from
Shorewood High School in 1942. Wisconsin must have
provided a good foundation for his future; he went on to
graduate first in his class from Stanford Law School and
to clerk for former Supreme Court Justice Robert H.
Jackson, another of the great jurists of the 20th century.
I have deep respect for this son of Wisconsin, although
I did not always agree with his substantive legal views.
Indeed, we are hearing praise for Chief Justice Rehnquist
from across the political and legal spectrum. To be
admired and respected despite philosophical differences is
one of the marks of a truly great man.
Justice John Paul Stevens, perhaps Rehnquist's most
ideologically distant colleague on the current Court, paid
tribute to him on behalf of the entire Court on the
occasion of Chief Justice Rehnquist's 30th anniversary on
the bench. Justice Stevens praised him for his efficiency,
good humor, and absolute impartiality when presiding over
Court conferences. That Chief Justice Rehnquist possessed
sufficient intellectual strength and personal skill to
preside over discussions among nine of the finest legal
minds in the Nation and to earn their respect is no small
feat, particularly considering the difficulties and
dissension that have marked discussions and conferences in
other eras. All acknowledge that Chief Justice Rehnquist
was a devoted and skilled Court administrator, not just
for his own highest court but also in his role as guardian
of our entire third branch of government, the Federal
judiciary.
In addition to his accomplishments on the Court, Chief
Justice Rehnquist deserves our greatest respect for the
dignity and fortitude with which he conducted himself in
the last year. Despite the fact that he was clearly
suffering from a serious illness, he continued to serve
the public and the Court. He was an inspiration to all who
encounter physical obstacles in carrying out their duties,
to all who face the challenges of illness or disability
but still want to contribute to their country or their
communities.
History will judge whether Chief Justice Rehnquist led
the Court in a direction that was good for the country.
For now, it is appropriate to recognize his intellect and
his service. I have deep respect for Chief Justice
Rehnquist's integrity, his personal fortitude and his
devotion to the Court and the entire judicial branch.
Wisconsin will miss our distinguished son.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the late
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. The Chief Justice
leaves behind a legacy as one of the longest serving and
most influential members of America's highest court.
America is a better and stronger nation because of his
distinguished service on the U.S. Supreme Court.
As many from his generation did, Chief Justice Rehnquist
served in the military during World War II. He relied on
the GI bill to attend college after the war and graduated
from Stanford Law School at the top of his class. In 1951
and 1952, Justice Rehnquist served as a U.S. Supreme Court
law clerk to Justice Robert Jackson, and then went on to a
distinguished career in private legal practice.
In 1971, President Nixon nominated Rehnquist to replace
John Marshall Harlan on the Supreme Court, beginning one
of the longest terms of service in the history of the U.S.
Supreme Court. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan nominated
Justice Rehnquist to be Chief Justice. He served in that
capacity for over 18 years.
Only 16 individuals have served as Chief Justice of the
United States. Legal scholars identify periods of
evolution in American jurisprudence by the name of the
Chief Justice presiding during each era. The Rehnquist
court will go down in American history as one of the most
important.
As an Associate Justice, Rehnquist began coaxing the
Court back into the role our Founders envisioned. As Chief
Justice, Rehnquist continued to gradually pull the Court
away from promoting particular social policies and back
toward the principles of federalism enshrined in our
Constitution. By the time he was through, Rehnquist had
patiently helped reshape the relationships between our
branches of government and the States.
Chief Justice Rehnquist deserves enormous credit for
returning the Court to its role of analyzing and
interpreting the Constitution and our laws. History will
judge Chief Justice Rehnquist well for the way in which he
shaped and guided the Supreme Court during his service to
our Nation.
America will miss him.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute
to one of the greatest legal minds of our day: Chief
Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist, who passed away late
Saturday night. His death is a tremendous loss to our
entire Nation. I join my fellow Americans in both mourning
his passing and honoring his profound contribution to our
country.
Chief Justice Rehnquist faithfully served the American
people on their Supreme Court for 33 years. Without
question, our country owes him a debt of great gratitude.
The individual who occupies the center seat on the
Supreme Court is not the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, but the Chief Justice of the United States--the one
person who embodies our national commitment to
constitutional democracy and to the rule of law.
Throughout his life, William Hubbs Rehnquist revered the
Supreme Court and the rule of law as few people have--not
only as our Nation's Chief Justice for 19 years, as
Associate Justice for 14 years, and as a High Court law
clerk, but also a student and a scholar of the Supreme
Court. Rehnquist has written numerous books on legal
history and the Supreme Court--including: ``The Supreme
Court: How It Was, How It Is''; ``Grand Inquests: The
Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and
President Andrew Johnson''; ``All the Laws But One: Civil
Liberties in Wartime''; and ``Centennial Crisis: The
Disputed Election of 1876.''
William Hubbs Rehnquist was born October 1, 1924, in
Milwaukee, WI. He entered the U.S. Army Air Force and
served in World War II from 1943 to 1946. Rehnquist
obtained his undergraduate degree from Stanford University
and two master's degrees from Stanford and Harvard
Universities. He received his law degree from Stanford,
graduating first in his class. Rehnquist served as a law
clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson, then practiced law in
Phoenix, AZ. President Richard Nixon appointed Rehnquist
to serve, first as Assistant Attorney General in charge of
the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of
Justice, and then as Associate Justice in 1972. President
Ronald Reagan nominated him as Chief Justice in 1986.
The Supreme Court enjoyed renewed admiration under
Rehnquist's leadership. Guided by Rehnquist's steady hand,
the U.S. Senate weathered one of the most difficult and
controversial moments in our Nation's modern history--the
impeachment trial of a sitting U.S. President.
Rehnquist believed that the best judiciary was a
restrained judiciary--one that would adhere to the letter
of the law--not to the personal policy preferences of its
members. Two areas in particular stand out in my mind as
perhaps the most lasting examples of this legacy.
The Rehnquist court may perhaps best be remembered for
the restoration of common sense to our criminal justice
system. Many Americans perhaps do not remember the days of
the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren. The 16
years under Warren, from 1953 to 1969, were nothing short
of a heyday for criminals in America. Many Americans
probably are familiar with the notion of letting a
criminal off on the basis of a ``technicality.'' This
notion originated in the years of the Warren court. The
Supreme Court let countless criminals go free because
police officers did not say precisely what the Court
wanted them to say when they arrested criminals, or
because warrants did not say precisely what the Court
wanted them to say when the police searched criminals. It
is no exaggeration to assert that, at that time, the
rights of criminals were placed before the rights of
victims--not to mention before the well-being of society
in general.
This period ended when President Reagan elevated William
Rehnquist to Chief Justice. Chief Justice Rehnquist did
his level best to return our Constitution to its original
understanding, an understanding that gives law enforcement
officials the freedom they need to protect society from
criminals. Over the last decade, we have witnessed a
historic decline in violent crime all across America. This
is due, in no small part, to the efforts of Chief Justice
Rehnquist.
The second area, one equally, if not more important than
the first, was the effort to restore the Federal-State
partnership known as ``federalism'' envisioned by our
Founding Fathers. Our Founding Fathers believed that
States and the Federal Government should be equal
partners. Indeed, it was the view of our Founding Fathers
that the Federal Government should have limited and
enumerated powers, and, in fact, the primary authority to
legislate should be left to State governments. I know this
might come as a surprise to some, but not all wisdom
emanates from Washington, DC. State governments, after
all, are closer to the people than the Federal Government
is. Our Founding Fathers realized this fact.
Unfortunately, many Supreme Court Justices did not. Over
the years, many of these Justices had interpreted the
Constitution to give the Federal Government unlimited
powers. These Justices characterized everything the
Federal Government wanted to do as a regulation of
``interstate commerce.''
This was a fiction, of course, but over the years the
Federal Government grew bigger and more powerful, the
State governments grew smaller and less powerful, and the
American people became less free.
Chief Justice Rehnquist did his part to stem this tide.
He tried to stand for our Constitution and the founding
vision that not everything should be left to the Federal
Government. Although this project is still unfinished,
Chief Justice Rehnquist made impressive strides, and there
is no question that our Nation is better off today for his
efforts.
Chief Justice Rehnquist's passing also reminds us that
Supreme Court Justices are, after all, human beings--and
that they should be treated with civility and respect, not
as political pawns. Thus, perhaps the best way that we in
the Senate might pay tribute to Chief Justice Rehnquist's
legacy is to put partisanship aside in the judicial
confirmation process.
President Bush has now fittingly nominated one of
Rehnquist's former law clerks, Judge John Roberts, to
replace him as Chief Justice. We should do the right thing
by Chief Justice Rehnquist and vote on Judge Roberts'
nomination as expeditiously as possible--and without some
of the political posturing that has greeted other well-
qualified nominees.
My thoughts and prayers are with Chief Justice
Rehnquist's family. The Nation suffered a profound loss on
Saturday night. I am confident, however, that we in the
Senate will do our part to proceed in a manner that honors
the memory of our late Chief Justice and in a manner that
would make him proud.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the death of William Hubbs
Rehnquist leaves us saddened but also grateful for his
more than three decades of service to his country as a
Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, including 19 years as
its Chief Justice.
I first met Chief Justice Rehnquist when he was a lawyer
in Phoenix. He spent most of the 1950s and 1960s
practicing law in our State, and raising a family there
with his wife, Natalie, who passed away in 1991. He made
an annual return to Arizona from 1994 until last year, to
teach a course on Supreme Court history at the University
of Arizona College of Law, my alma mater.
Appointed to his seat by President Nixon in 1972, and
elevated to Chief Justice by President Reagan in 1986, he
provided steady leadership at the Court through turbulent
decades. He showed that one man of integrity really can
make a difference.
He was a conservative whose philosophy did not always
carry the day, especially in his early years on the Court.
More recently, there has been greater acceptance of his
notion of balance between the authority of States and the
Federal Government. His decisions helped prevent the
rights of criminal suspects from being overemphasized to
the point that law enforcement was hampered in doing its
job. They curbed the government's use of racial quotas,
deemed by most Americans to be a squandering of the moral
authority of the civil rights movement. They reaffirmed
the religious freedom clause of the first amendment. They
upheld restrictions on the practice of abortion, again in
keeping with the views of most Americans.
On a personal level, William Rehnquist had a quick, dry
wit and a manner that was warm and courteous. He was a
straight shooter, devoid of pretentiousness, yet deeply
learned in the law and many other things. The legacy he
leaves includes the histories he wrote, namely his four
books on the Court and the American legal system: ``The
Supreme Court: How It Was, How It Is,'' 1987; ``Grand
Inquests: The Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel
Chase and President Andrew Johnson,'' 1992; ``All the Laws
But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime,'' 1998; and
``Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 1876,''
2004.
Notice those titles. We had, during his tenure as Chief
Justice, a Presidential impeachment--over which he
presided with a dignity and good sense that were
reassuring to all, in and out of the Senate Chamber. We
had a disputed election--in which he led the Court in
delivering the U.S. Government and the country from a
nightmare of litigation and partisan combat.
His death has left mourners even among those who
disagreed with him. The liberal law professor Laurence H.
Tribe offered words of praise for his brilliance, his
honesty, and his calm leadership. He called Chief Justice
Rehnquist ``a master'' at enabling the Court to ``earn the
respect of all who take part in its proceedings or are
affected by its rulings.'' Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
said he ``was the fairest, most efficient boss I have ever
had.''
The admiration he inspired in people all across the
political spectrum is due also to the superb job he did as
the Federal judiciary's top administrator, which is part
of the role of Chief Justice. He staunchly asserted the
independence of the Federal court system and fought to see
that those who worked in it were adequately compensated.
William Rehnquist loved his family; he loved the law; he
loved America and its history; and he loved the Supreme
Court as an institution. The courage and tenacity he
showed, despite suffering from thyroid cancer, were
typical of him. He presided over oral arguments in the
spring and continued his work on that group of cases until
just last month.
It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges
as free, impartial, and independent as the lot of humanity
will admit.
So said the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which
influenced the writing of the U.S. Constitution. William
Rehnquist was a free, impartial, and independent judge.
His combination of strong-mindedness and meticulous
fairness made him perfect for the position he held. He
makes Americans, and especially Arizonans, very proud. We
mourn his loss.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, while the Nation's attention
is rightly focused on the ongoing tragedy in the South, I
would also like to say a few words about the passing of a
great American. After a long and extraordinary life,
William Rehnquist died this past weekend. The 16th Chief
Justice of the United States leaves us with an unmatched
legacy of service to our Nation.
Born 80 years ago in Milwaukee, WI, William Rehnquist
lived a truly remarkable life. Like many in his
generation, he served in World War II and was stationed in
North Africa. With the support of scholarship money from
the GI bill, Chief Justice Rehnquist attended college at
Stanford University. He then went on to earn his law
degree from Stanford Law School. At law school, the Chief
Justice began to establish his reputation as a brilliant
legal thinker and an able scholar. He graduated at the top
of his class, just ahead of Sandra Day O'Connor.
After clerking for Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson,
Rehnquist married his late wife Natalie Cornell and moved
to Phoenix, AZ. There, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Nan
raised their three children--James, Janet, and Nancy--
while he built a long career as one of Arizona's leading
attorneys.
In 1969, Chief Justice Rehnquist became a public servant
as an Assistant U.S. Attorney General. Two years later, he
was nominated by President Nixon to the Supreme Court.
After being confirmed by the Senate, he took his seat as
an Associate Justice of the Court--at 47, he was the
Court's youngest member. In 1986, President Reagan
nominated and the Senate confirmed Justice Rehnquist as
the Chief Justice of the United States.
During his 33 years on the Court, Chief Justice
Rehnquist gained respect for his sharp intellect, his
strong sense of fairness, and his profound devotion to the
Court and to public service.
The Chief Justice's extraordinary legal career was
surpassed only by the courage that he showed in his final
year of life. During that time, he battled bravely against
thyroid cancer. Through radiation and chemotherapy
treatments, he continued to serve on the Court and stated
that he would continue to perform his duties as Chief
Justice as long as his health permitted. He did just that,
with the dignity and dedication that characterized his
tenure on the Court.
William Rehnquist truly was first among equals. May he
rest in peace.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I speak in honor of
Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The Chief Justice served
this Nation's highest court with distinction and honor for
more than three decades, and his career in public service
started years earlier. Even as he battled cancer over the
past year, he continued to be an example of personal
strength, dignity, and fortitude. I join my colleagues in
mourning his passing and offering my prayers to his
family.
The Chief Justice was a staunch defender of the Supreme
Court and an active, independent judiciary. He was admired
as a warm and helpful colleague, a thoughtful mentor, and
an extremely effective administrator of the Federal court
system. The courts were well cared for under his
distinguished leadership.
Chief Justice Rehnquist also engaged directly with many
of the toughest constitutional controversies of the 20th
century. Although I often disagreed with his decisions,
Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinions have been the source of
important scholarship and litigation. Like the Chief
Justice he followed, the late Earl Warren, Chief Justice
Rehnquist will be remembered as an important historical
figure whose legacy will impact generations of Americans.
I knew the Chief Justice only at a distance. As a lawyer
and a constitutional law instructor, I was required to
wrestle intellectually with his ideas and arguments, and
to press my students to divine his judicial instincts and
motivations. My regret is that I never got to know him
personally, or even to join one of his legendary walks
around the Capitol or monthly poker games. I know that his
warmth and humor have touched many of my colleagues, and
he will be missed.
Of course the strength of our constitutional structure
is that it is greater than any individual. Each of us
plays but a small role in designing or building or
repairing that structure. It is greater and more important
than any of us. We mourn the passing of Chief Justice
Rehnquist and now look to the future and the important
work to be done.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Chief
Justice William Rehnquist, who was a brilliant jurist, a
devoted public servant, and a person who shared my love of
Vermont.
Though most Americans knew Chief Justice Rehnquist for
his years of service on the Supreme Court, many Vermonters
knew him as a neighbor and a friend. Like most who visit
our great State, Chief Justice Rehnquist fell in love with
Vermont's natural beauty and rural character and purchased
a home in Greensboro in 1974.
For over 30 years, Chief Justice Rehnquist escaped the
humidity and stress of Washington every summer in favor of
the picturesque surroundings and quiet charm of Caspian
Lake. Whether it was playing cards, visiting Willey's
Store, or worshipping at the Greensboro United Church of
Christ, Chief Justice Rehnquist immersed himself in the
community with a remarkable subtlety and modesty for a man
of his stature and prominence. The Chief Justice would
also share his knowledge of history, politics, and the law
with community members in a lecture that became a much
anticipated summer tradition in Vermont's Northeast
Kingdom.
Each year, before the State of the Union, I would
usually have a chance to chat with the Chief Justice about
his time in Vermont. Amidst the chaos and cameras of the
Capitol on such a busy night, Chief Justice Rehnquist
always found time to reminisce about the summer months he
spent in our State. I always enjoyed these brief
discussions with such a kind and engaging man who valued
life's simple pleasures so dearly.
On September 5, the Burlington Free Press, describing
the reaction in Greensboro to the Chief Justice's passing,
wrote:
It wasn't a dignitary that was mourned; it was a guy who
liked to walk everywhere and call people by their first
names (and expected them to return the favor). It was a
guy who had an affinity for Hershey's Special Dark
Chocolate bars and Donna Gerow's homemade pumpkin bread.
As millions of Americans mourn the loss of one of the
most influential people of our time, Vermonters in
Greensboro, and around Caspian Lake, mourn a good
neighbor, a great friend, and a fellow Vermonter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to a vote on the resolution honoring
the life of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, which the
clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 234), relative to the death of
William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States.
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0.
The resolution (S. Res. 234) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 234
Whereas William H. Rehnquist, the late Chief Justice of
the United States, was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to
William Benjamin Rehnquist and Margery Peck Rehnquist and
raised in Shorewood, Wisconsin;
Whereas a young William H. Rehnquist served our Nation
during the Second World War in the United States Army Air
Force at home and abroad from 1943 to 1946;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist enrolled in Stanford
University, where he earned a bachelor's and master's
degree in political science and was elected to Phi Beta
Kappa;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist earned a second master's
degree in government from Harvard University;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist graduated first in a very
impressive class, including his future Supreme Court
colleague, Sandra Day O'Connor, from Stanford University's
School of Law;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist began his legal career by
serving as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Robert
Jackson;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist married the late Natalie
Cornell, and they raised 3 children, James, Janet, and
Nancy;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist was an accomplished
attorney, having practiced law for 16 years in Phoenix,
Arizona;
Whereas President Richard Nixon selected William H.
Rehnquist to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the
Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice;
Whereas President Richard Nixon also nominated William
H. Rehnquist to serve as an Associate Justice on the
Supreme Court of the United States;
Whereas President Ronald Reagan nominated William H.
Rehnquist to serve as the sixteenth Chief Justice of the
United States;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist had a profound love for
history and respect for the arts and served as Chancellor
of the Smithsonian Institution for 19 years;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist was a skilled writer and
avid historian and authored several books on Supreme Court
history and the American legal system;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist was a man of enormous
intellect and great common sense, a combination that was
reflected in the clarity of his opinions;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist's record illustrates his
unwavering commitment to judicial restraint, judicial
independence, and the rule of law;
Whereas, under his firm leadership and superb managerial
skills, William H. Rehnquist efficiently managed the
Supreme Court of the United States for 19 years;
Whereas leaders of both political parties agree that
William H. Rehnquist served with honor and integrity in
his role as the second Chief Justice of the United States
to preside over a presidential impeachment trial,
respecting the institutional domain of the Senate and its
processes, procedures, and traditions;
Whereas, as the leader of the Supreme Court, William H.
Rehnquist was highly regarded by all of his colleagues,
including those with differing judicial philosophies;
Whereas his former colleagues have described William H.
Rehnquist as a ``splendid administrator'', ``the most
efficient manager'', ``a great Chief Justice'',
``meticulously fair'', and the ``most all-around
successful'' Chief Justice;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist served with distinction on
the Supreme Court of the United States for over 14 years
as an Associate Justice and 19 years as the Chief Justice,
more than 33 years in all;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist was the fourth longest
serving Chief Justice of the United States;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist was 1 of our Nation's most
influential and memorable Chief Justices;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist was the embodiment of the
ideal qualities of a judge, fair, impartial, open minded,
and above all committed to the Constitution and the rule
of law;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist will be remembered as 1 of
the greatest Chief Justices of the United States;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist passed away on September 3,
2005, surrounded by his loving family; and
Whereas our Nation is deeply indebted to William H.
Rehnquist, a truly distinguished American: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) extends its heartfelt sympathy to the family and
friends of William H. Rehnquist;
(2) acknowledges William H. Rehnquist's life-long
service to the United States of America as a World War II
veteran, a talented attorney, a dedicated public servant,
a brilliant jurist, and one of our Nation's greatest Chief
Justices; and
(3) commends William H. Rehnquist for his 33 year tenure
on the Supreme Court of the United States and his many
accomplishments as Chief Justice of the United States.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the time until 1:30
be equally divided, and at 1:30 the Senate stand in recess
until 3:30 today as a further mark of respect to Chief
Justice Rehnquist, provided further that when the Senate
reconvenes at 3:30 there be a period for morning business
with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes
each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to take the next
10 minutes to talk about a couple of different items.
Not far from where we are today, the body of our late
Chief Justice has lain in repose, and a number of us were
privileged to go there earlier today just to say goodbye
and to thank him for his service to our country--33 years.
That is a long time, more than three decades that he has
served us. His love for our country, his love for the law
and the integrity of our Nation's judiciary system was
only surpassed by his love for his family and for those
with whom he worked.
During his time on the Court, he fostered, among other
things, real congeniality among the Justices--something
that is not easy to do in that forum or, frankly, in this
one. In return, he was held in high esteem by his
colleagues who had called him, among other things,
``brilliant,'' ``principled,'' ``generous,'' with ``a good
sense of humor,'' something we can never have too much of.
He demonstrated great personal strength and courage in
leading the Court and this country through difficult and
contentious times, continuing his work in the face of
ever-daunting health problems that would have set most of
us on our backs and far out of the courtroom.
There are many judicial hallmarks of his time on the
Court. Throughout his tenure on the Court, he staunchly
supported the independence of the Federal judiciary and
our overall governmental system of checks and balances. We
will miss him, but we are grateful that he was here to
serve us for as long as he has.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this
afternoon to speak for three very important reasons. Of
course, first is to recognize our Chief Justice who has
just passed, William Rehnquist.
Today the Senate paid its respects to the late Chief
Justice Rehnquist, filing through the halls of the Supreme
Court where he served this Nation with distinction for
more than 33 years.
I could not help but remember a conversation I had with
Chief Justice Rehnquist a couple of years ago. I was
walking to work and happened to run into him on one of his
legendary strolls around the Court. We talked a bit about
what was happening in the judicial nomination process in
the Senate. But the specifics of that conversation are
probably less important than the style of the
conversation. He was informal, approachable, genteel, but
certainly direct. And regardless of his physical frailty,
he had lost none of his interest or his ability to give a
shrewd analysis of the events of the day. If you spent any
time at all with this very important man, you would feel
the force of his great personality.
Much has already been written about the legal legacy of
Chief Justice Rehnquist because he was one of the most
influential jurists of our time. He anchored and presided
over a shift to conservative principles, underscoring in
particular the importance of federalism and limitations on
government. I know some in the conservative community were
disappointed that the Supreme Court, on his watch, did not
reverse more prior left-leaning precedents, but his strong
hand was certainly obvious in a long series of history-
making decisions. William Rehnquist's impact on
jurisprudence was profound and will be felt for many years
to come.
In his personal life, I know this engaging man had many
friends, and to all of them, as well as his family, I
extend my deepest condolences. The Court has lost a
brilliant and fair leader. America has lost a great public
servant. I consider myself fortunate to have had the
chance to know and be inspired by William Rehnquist.
I thank the leader for this opportunity to add one more
voice to the chorus of tributes from a grateful Nation.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to join with all my
colleagues and with America in expressing our condolences
to the Rehnquist family and, obviously, our great
appreciation for his extraordinary service to this Nation.
I hope at a later date to put in a more extensive
statement. He was a man whose commitment to the law was
exceptional, but his commitment to the country was even
higher. We are very fortunate to have had him as our Chief
Justice and as a Justice on the Supreme Court for so long.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to
William Rehnquist, 16th Chief Justice of the United
States. That is the title, Chief Justice of the United
States. While the ceremony honoring him goes forward I
think it is appropriate that we in this body recognize his
incredible service to the Nation. His biography, where he
came from and what he did, has been spoken of a great
deal. What I wanted to speak about is not only that, but
also his personal impact on me, one that he wouldn't have
known or known about.
As a young law student in the early 1980s at the
University of Kansas, I can remember studying
constitutional law and other areas where his opinions came
forth. Frequently in those days he was in the minority
opinion role.
Many of my law school professors would say: Can you
believe what this guy wrote? I remember reading his
opinions and thinking his opinion seemed very logical. It
seems to me he believed in holding with the great
traditions of being a Nation of the rule of law, not the
rule of man. The Constitution is a textural document.
Chief Justice Rehnquist had a big impact on me in his
writings and what he believed we stood for as a nation. He
has had a big impact on this Nation, and he will be sorely
missed.
He was genteel in all of his dealings. Even when he
presided in the Senate over the impeachment trial for
President Clinton, he did so in a very stately, gentle
fashion. Just his presence was one of a man at peace with
himself, who knew what he was about, and knew his role and
his duty. He fulfilled his duty to the best of his
abilities as Chief Justice, Associate Justice on the
Supreme Court, as presiding over an impeachment trial, and
working with clerks.
I think one of the most telling things for an individual
is what the people say who worked for you, and
particularly those who worked for you perhaps in a lower
capacity. It seems unanimous that the clerks for Chief
Justice Rehnquist admired the man while they worked for
him. It is a tribute to him how well they worked together
and how he helped form them. There is a great symmetry
about this in John Roberts being nominated now, as a
former clerk of Chief Justice Rehnquist, and now nominated
to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by his
former boss. John Roberts is an outstanding nomination to
the Chief Justice position. I hope we can move forward in
an expeditious fashion, certainly thorough, but in an
expeditious fashion.
That is not what we are here today to talk about. Today
it is to talk about and to reflect upon an amazing
American in William Rehnquist. He grew up in the suburbs
of Milwaukee, WI. His father was the son of Swedish
immigrants, and worked as a paper salesman. His mother was
a multilingual professional translator. Shortly after
graduation from high school, Chief Justice Rehnquist
enlisted in the Air Force and during World War II served
as a weather observer in North Africa. On completion of
his service in the Air Force, the Chief Justice began his
undergraduate work at Stanford University. Yes, he did it
on the GI bill.
In 1952, Rehnquist graduated first in his class from
Stanford Law School, certainly a monumental
accomplishment, an accomplishment of great discipline.
Following law school, he clerked for former Supreme Court
Justice Robert Jackson. In 1953, he began work at a law
firm in Phoenix, and his brilliance was noted by the Nixon
Deputy Attorney General at that time, Richard Kleindienst.
On October 22, 1971, President Richard Nixon nominated him
to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. He
was confirmed less than 2 months later, which would be
record speed for this body by today's standard.
During his time on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice
Rehnquist has defended the original text of the
Constitution. To a number of people that may seem like a
simple task. After all, it is the Constitution. It is the
basic law of the land. What is there to defend? The law
speaks for itself. It is a set of plain words on a clear
document that has such a significant historical place in
our hearts and minds. Yet he comes along on a Court at a
point in time when a number of people are saying: It is a
living document, it can move with the culture, and we can
interpret the words more broadly. We can interpret it not
by what it says, but by what we would like it to say.
Chief Justice Rehnquist fought against that and fought
for the original text of the Constitution and said it is
as it is. This is a textural document. If we want to
change it, that is fine, but it is changed by two-thirds
of the House and two-thirds of the Senate and three-
fourths of the States, not by five people on the Court.
Those are not his words, but they are the principles he
stood for.
The role of a Justice on the Supreme Court is to look at
the plain meaning and the original text of the
Constitution, not at your own cultural bias of the moment
and what you believe America may need and therefore may be
willing to move to.
The problem with a living document is that you don't
have the rule of law. You are more of a rule of man. So he
defended this proposition of the original text of the
Constitution, the intent of the Framers.
Certainly he was a promoter of life. It was in the 1973
dissent in Roe v. Wade that then-Associate Justice
Rehnquist wrote:
To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to
find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right
that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of
the Amendment.
These are Associate Justice Rehnquist's words. In his
early years of lonely dissents in cases like Roe,
Rehnquist made his mark by standing for constitutional
principle over the political preferences of an unelected
judiciary. With the retirement of Chief Justice Warren
Burger in 1986, President Reagan then elevated Associate
Justice Rehnquist to the Court's top post where he served
with distinction until his death.
The last 19 years have shown that Chief Justice
Rehnquist was a terrific choice to lead the Supreme Court.
He authored countless landmark decisions and thought-
provoking dissents. In carefully reasoned opinions, he
insisted that the principle of federalism is an integral
part of our Nation's constitutional structure. He
recognized that our government is one of enumerated rights
and dual sovereignty, with certain functions and powers
properly left to the States.
One example of Chief Justice Rehnquist's commitment to
the laws is his opinion in Dickerson v. United States.
Although a long-time critic of Miranda v. Arizona,
Rehnquist nevertheless placed his past position aside and
wrote the opinion in Dickerson, effectively affirming the
holding of Miranda. He served well. He served nobly, and
he served with courage. I might note that even during his
recent sickness, he found the strength to do his duty and
to serve in office. He found the strength to administer
the oath of office to President Bush, to consider the
challenging cases that came before the Court.
Peggy Noonan wrote of President Bush's inauguration:
[T]he most poignant moment was the manful William
Rehnquist, unable to wear a tie and making his way down
the long marble steps to swear in the president. The
continuation of democracy is made possible by such
gallantry.
While some of his colleagues on the Court disagreed with
him at times, there can be no doubt that they admired his
strong leadership, his likable personality, and his
ability to build consensus. That is the noteworthy quality
of a gentleman. He served with distinction. He served us
well. He carried his course out, and he is now at rest.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did
not take a moment to say what a great loss our country has
experienced with the passing of our Chief Justice William
Rehnquist. William Rehnquist was a man of deep integrity
and honor, a true public servant. He served our country
well, always keeping an eye toward tradition and working
to bring constitutional reason to the complex questions of
our Nation. Our country is better for the guiding hand he
placed on the Court. His resolute spirit will be missed.
Chief Justice Rehnquist's leadership brought the Court
through three decades of very tumultuous times. September
17 of this year would mark the 19th year of his tenure as
Chief Justice.
He led the judiciary with resolve and a steady hand. He
will be greatly missed by his family, his colleagues, the
Court, and by a grateful Nation.
As we turn our attention in the coming weeks to the
confirmation process to consider the President's nominee
to serve as the next Chief Justice, it would be
appropriate to pause and reflect on the service to our
country provided by this man of exceptional intellect who
served his Nation long and faithfully.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, the
distinguished Senator from Florida, in expressing my
personal condolences and those of my fellow Minnesotans to
the family and friends of the former Chief Justice, and I
share the sentiments in regard to his distinguished
service to our Nation.
Thursday, September 8, 2005
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
At 12:08 p.m., a message from the House of
Representatives, delivered by Mr. Croatt, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the House has agreed to the
following resolution:
H. Res. 422. Resolution expressing the profound sorrow
of the House of Representatives on the death of the
Honorable William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the
United States.
The message also announced that the House has agreed to
the following concurrent resolution, without amendment:
S. Con. Res. 52. Concurrent resolution providing for the
use of the catafalque situated in the crypt beneath the
Rotunda of the Capitol in connection with memorial
services to be conducted in the Supreme Court Building for
the late honorable William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of
the United States.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
Senators be permitted to submit tributes to Chief Justice
Rehnquist for the Record until September 30, 2005, and
that all tributes be printed as a Senate document.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Friday, September 9, 2005
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the people of
Minnesota I have taken the floor today to express our
condolences to the Rehnquist family for their loss and
gratitude and admiration for his extraordinary life of
service.
The Midwest, where William Rehnquist was born, does not
have the high mountains or the pounding ocean surf of
other parts of the country. We learn from our geography
the value of moderation and dependability. William
Rehnquist was a solid human being whose consistency and
resolve as a member of the Supreme Court benefited the
whole country in turbulent times.
The historian Whitehead has written that the essence of
leadership is maintaining order in the midst of change,
and change in the midst of order. William Rehnquist lived
out the principle that both change and order are necessary
in the law and he knew when we needed each.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist served America with
great distinction on the Supreme Court for 33 years. His
profound respect for the Constitution and his collegial
relationships throughout the judiciary will be a standard
for future Justices. He knew that his role was more than
deciding cases: it was to raise the knowledge of and
respect for the rule of law.
Mr. Rehnquist took his seat as an Associate Supreme
Court Justice in 1972 after being appointed by President
Richard Nixon, and became Chief Justice in 1986, during
the Reagan administration.
His opinions reflected a staunch adherence to the
constitutional principle of States rights. He also
displayed an untiring willingness to work with his
colleagues to find a compromise without minimizing his
position. Chief Justice Rehnquist will be remembered as
one of our most influential Chief Justices in history.
As the Court's most junior Justice, Rehnquist made State
sovereignty his central principle of American
constitutional law. At times, especially in those early
years in 1973, he stood alone in his support of State
sovereignty but continued this fight to the end of his
time on the bench.
Chief Justice Rehnquist succeeded in shifting the
balance of power between States and the Federal
Government. The control and limitation of Federal control
will always be a legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist. He
protected the Constitution in his application of the law
and took great pride in his protection of civil liberties
and the importance of freedom and the democratic spirit in
our Constitution.
As Chief Justice, Mr. Rehnquist made his mark on the
Court with grace in an environment where Justices of
varying opinions could express themselves free from
personal attacks and/or ideological stalemates. His was a
Court of strong personalities who operated in profound
respect for each other and the country gained from their
wisdom and discourse. He was a great leader and effective
administrator of the Supreme Court.
I was personally touched by Chief Justice Rehnquist's
determination and heroic passion to serve while battling
cancer. As we often hear, we are a government of law and
not men and women, and that is true. But our
constitutional principles are not self-enforcing. We
depend on men and women of good hearts and sharp minds to
steer us through difficult moments when the issues of the
day collide with our Constitution of over 200 years of
age.
He was to the end a midwesterner: strong, reliable and
devoted to the idea of leaving things better than he found
them. The whole Nation, and future generations of
Americans should be deeply grateful for the legacy he has
left.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Mrs. MURRAY. . . . Last week, this Chamber mourned the
passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist who served on our
Nation's highest court for over three decades. The great
range of issues on which the Supreme Court ruled during
Justice Rehnquist's tenure--from Roe v. Wade to capital
punishment to Miranda rights to the conclusion of a
Presidential election--shows the American public just how
closely the Court touches each of our daily lives. My home
State of Washington is 3,000 miles away from the Nation's
Capital, but the issues the Supreme Court takes up,
whether it be title IX or eminent domain or a woman's
right to choose, hits home for them as well.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I join in acknowledging the
life and service of Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
His was a life of public service. During the Supreme
Court's 1951 and 1952 terms, he served as a law clerk for
Justice Robert Jackson. From 1969 to 1971, he served as
Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department's
Office of Legal Counsel. And from January 7, 1972, to his
passing Saturday, he served on the Supreme Court. Through
his life of service, Justice Rehnquist has left an
indelible mark on this Nation.
In 1969, on appointing Judge Burger as Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, President Nixon had said: Our Chief
Justices have probably had more profound and lasting
influence on their times and on the direction of the
Nation than most Presidents.
President Nixon was right. And the service of Chief
Justice Rehnquist was proof.
In 1971, President Nixon nominated Justice Rehnquist to
the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice. And in 1986,
President Reagan elevated him to the position of Chief
Justice. In the history of this Nation, only 16 men have
held this high office. Justice Rehnquist presided over the
court as Chief Justice for 19 years. Only three men served
longer as Chief Justice: Melville Weston Fuller, Roger
Taney, and John Marshall.
I felt a tie with Justice Rehnquist, as he had attended
Stanford University and Stanford Law School, a few years
ahead of me at both schools. In another one of those
quirks of history, he attended the same Stanford Law
School class with Sandra Day O'Connor, who would later
join him on the Supreme Court.
I was also able to observe Chief Justice Rehnquist at
close range, in 1999, when he presided over the Senate
sitting in on the impeachment trial of President Clinton.
Chief Justice Rehnquist had written a book on
impeachments. But more important, his presence brought
dignity and a much-needed sense of humor to those
difficult proceedings.
At one point he noted that a Senate rule forbids both
sides in the impeachment trial from objecting to a
question.
From the presiding officer's chair, the Chief Justice
wryly observed: The Parliamentarian says they can only
object to an answer and not to a question, which is kind
of an unusual thing.
The Chief Justice chuckled, and Senators laughed with
him.
At another point, Majority Leader Lott asked how much
time each side had used. The Chief Justice checked with
the Parliamentarian and first announced that the House
managers had taken 54 minutes and the White House had
taken 57 minutes. But then the Chief Justice said that he
needed to correct himself, saying that the House managers
had actually used up 64 minutes, not just 54 minutes.
House Manager Rogan, who was scheduled to speak next,
inquired: I trust that doesn't mean I have to sit down,
Mr. Chief Justice.
The Chief Justice quipped in response: It's not
retroactive.
Mr. President, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote many
opinions with which I do not agree. He was a very
conservative Justice.
But I will miss Chief Justice Rehnquist. He was a great
figure of our times. We will not forget him.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate
begins the debate on the confirmation of Judge John G.
Roberts, Jr., to be Chief Justice of the United States. It
is not an overstatement to note this is a historic debate.
At the age of 50, Judge Roberts, if confirmed, has the
potential to serve as Chief Justice until the year 2040 or
beyond.
Today, Justice John Paul Stevens, at the age of 85,
continues to serve. If you project Judge Roberts ahead 35
years, it would be to the year 2040. Obviously, by that
time it will be a very different world. There will be very
different issues which will confront the Court with the
advances in technology, with the advances in brain
scanning, key questions as to how far the privilege
against self-incrimination goes to scan someone's brain.
Will it be like a blood test and fingerprints or will it
be viewed as invasive and a violation of a right to
privacy? Those are the kinds of issues which Judge Roberts
will confront if confirmed as Chief Justice.
He also has the potential to project a new image on the
Supreme Court. That Court has been buffeted by a whole
series of 5-to-4 decisions. Candidly, some of them are
inexplicable, where you have, this year, the Supreme Court
of the United States saying that Texas could display the
Ten Commandments outdoors, but Kentucky could not display
the Ten Commandments indoors. There are some minor
differences, but it is hard to understand how the Ten
Commandments can be shown in Texas but not in Kentucky by
a 5-to-4 vote.
Under the very important legislation of the Americans
With Disabilities Act, the Supreme Court had two 5-to-4
decisions 3 years apart. One, in a case captioned Garrett
v. University of Alabama, in 2001, the Supreme Court
declared the title unconstitutional which dealt with
discrimination against the disabled in employment.
Three years later, in Tennessee v. Lane, the Supreme
Court upheld the constitutionality of another title of the
Americans with Disabilities Act which dealt with access to
public accommodations. We have seen a proliferation of
opinions with multiple concurrences, making them very hard
to understand. Earlier this year, the Judiciary Committee
took up the issue of what was happening in Guantanamo, and
a study was undertaken on three opinions handed down by
the Supreme Court in June of last year. On one case, they
couldn't get a majority, a plurality of four, so there was
no holding. In the other two cases, there were
concurrences and dissents. You have a pattern which exists
where Justice A will write a concurring opinion, joined by
Justice B, and Justice B will write a separate concurring
opinion, joined by Justice A and Justice C.
This is an issue which was considered during the course
of Judge Roberts' hearings. It is one where a new judge, a
new Chief Justice at the age of 50, will have an
opportunity to make some very systemic changes in the way
the Court functions. When Judge Roberts was questioned
about his ability to handle this matter--first during the
informal meeting in my office and later in the hearings--
he said he thought he could handle it because, in his many
appearances before the Supreme Court, some 39 in number,
it was a dialog among equals. I was impressed by his
concept of a dialog among equals, that he considered
himself as a lawyer arguing before the Court to be dealing
with equals. I have had occasion three times to appear
before the Supreme Court, and it didn't seem to me like a
dialog among equals. But when you have been there 39 times
and you know the Justices as well as he does--and the word
is that the Justices very much applaud his nomination to
be Chief Justice--he has the potential almost from a
running start to bring a new day and a new era to the
Supreme Court. That is a very attractive feature about his
projection as Chief Justice.
We know the famous historical story about Earl Warren's
becoming Chief Justice in 1953. The Court was then faced
with Brown v. Board of Education, the desegregation case.
There were many disputes in the Court at that time. They
had to carry the case over. Chief Justice Warren was able
to get a unanimous Court, which was important, so that
contentious issue was one where nine Justices agreed and
came down with an opinion which was obviously difficult to
implement but had a great deal more stature because of its
unanimity. So here is an extra bonus for the Court, an
extra bonus for America, if confirmed as Chief Justice:
the potential that Judge Roberts has to promote a new day
and a new era for the Court administratively.
On his qualifications, Judge Roberts was rated ``well
qualified'' by the American Bar Association. It is
understandable, since he was a summa cum laude graduate of
Harvard College, magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law
School; had a very distinguished career as assistant to
Attorney General William French Smith, after serving as a
clerk to a distinguished Second Circuit judge, Henry
Friendly; then served as clerk to then-Associate Justice
William Rehnquist; then, following his work with Attorney
General William French Smith, became Associate White House
Counsel; practiced with the prestigious law firm of Hogan
& Hartson--Hogan & Hartson was prestigious before Judge
Roberts got there but a lot more so after he was there
and, frankly, after he left--then his status as a premier
appellate lawyer; then the Supreme Court with some 39
cases.
It was my view that Judge Roberts has a broad, expansive
understanding of the application of the Constitution. He
said:
They
--referring to the Framers--
were crafting a document that they intended to apply in a
meaningful way down through the ages.
While he would not quite accept my characterization of
agreement with Justice John Marshall Harlan on the
document being a living thing, he did say that the core
principles of liberty and due process had broad meaning as
applied to evolving societal conditions. He is not an
originalist. He is not looking to original intent. But he
sees the Constitution for the ages and adaptable to
evolving societal conditions.
On the issue of how many questions he answered before
the Judiciary Committee, I believe he answered more than
most but, candidly, did not answer as many questions as I
would like to have had him answer. I will detail that in
the course of this brief presentation.
I have observed, in the 10 Supreme Court nominations
where I have had the privilege to participate on the
Judiciary Committee, that nominees answer about as many
questions as they believe they have to in order to be
confirmed. But it has become an evolving process. A view
of some of the history of Supreme Court nominations is
relevant to see what has happened, what is in the course
of happening, and what the next nominee may face.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has conducted hearings on
nominees only since 1916--that is, for the Supreme Court--
with the nomination of Louis Brandeis by President Woodrow
Wilson. Justice Brandeis did not appear. The first time a
nominee appeared before the committee was in 1925. The
nominee was Harlan Fiske Stone. An issue had arisen as to
whether there was a political motivation in the
controversial investigation into the conduct of Judge
Burton Wheeler. Justice Stone asked to appear to respond
to the allegations. He did so, and he was confirmed.
In 1939, President Roosevelt nominated Felix
Frankfurter, who initially refused to appear personally,
but after being attacked for his foreign birth, his
religious beliefs, and his associations, Frankfurter
decided to appear. He read from a prepared statement,
refused to discuss his personal views on issues before the
Supreme Court. His hearing lasted only an hour and a half
in duration and did not set a precedent for future
nominees.
In 1949, Sherman Minton, who had been a U.S. Senator,
became the only Supreme Court nominee to refuse to testify
before the Judiciary Committee. Minton wrote to the
committee:
I feel the personal participation by the nominee in the
committee proceedings related to his nomination presents a
serious question of propriety, particularly when I might
be required to express my views on highly controversial
and litigious issues affecting the Court.
Notwithstanding Minton's refusal, the committee
conducted its hearing in Minton's absence and confirmed
him. It wasn't until 1955, with the nomination of Justice
John Marshall Harlan, that nominees have appeared
regularly before the Judiciary Committee. Only since 1981,
following my own election in 1980, have the hearings taken
on a little different approach as to what the nominees
will answer. Justice O'Connor declined to answer many
questions. The next nomination hearing was that for Chief
Justice Rehnquist, who was a sitting Associate Justice.
Initially Justice Rehnquist declined to appear, then was
advised that if he wanted to be confirmed, he would have
to appear. It was a contentious hearing. As the record
shows, Chief Justice Rehnquist was confirmed by a vote of
65 to 33. He did answer a great many questions, although
he did not answer a great many questions.
I asked him a bedrock question as to whether Congress
had the authority to take away the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court of the United States on the first amendment.
He declined to answer. Overnight a Senate staffer brought
me an article which had been written by a young Arizona
lawyer in 1958 by the name of William H. Rehnquist which
appeared in the Harvard Law Record. The young Arizona
lawyer, William H. Rehnquist, was very tough on the Senate
Judiciary Committee for the way it conducted its hearings
for Charles Whittaker. Charles Whittaker was from Kansas
City. There are two Kansas Cities--one in Kansas and one
in Missouri. Justice Whittaker lived in one and practiced
law in the other. A big to-do was made about the fact that
it would be an honor to two States if he was confirmed,
where he worked and where he lived.
This young lawyer from Arizona, Bill Rehnquist, didn't
think that amounted to a whole lot. He chastised the
Senate Judiciary Committee for not asking about due
process and other constitutional issues. So in the face of
his declination to answer my questions on taking
jurisdiction away from the Supreme Court on the first
amendment, I asked him if he was that William H. Rehnquist
from Arizona. He said, Yes, that was true, he was.
I said: Did you write this article?
He said: Yes, I did. Then he added quickly: And I was
wrong.
So that didn't end the issue because having the
authority of this young lawyer from Arizona, pretty good
reasoning, I pursued the questions. Finally, he answered
the question on could the Congress take away the
jurisdiction of the Court on the first amendment. He said,
No, the Congress could not do that.
So naturally I then asked about the fourth amendment,
search and seizure. Could the Congress take away the
jurisdiction from the Supreme Court on search and seizure.
He declined to answer that. I went to amendment five on
privilege against self-incrimination. Again he declined.
And then six, on right to counsel, and seven, and eight on
cruel and unusual punishment. Then I asked him a follow-up
question: Why would he answer on the first amendment but
not on any of the others? As you may suspect, he refused
to answer that question as well.
It was my judgment that Chief Justice Rehnquist passed
muster. It was a battle. And then Justice Scalia came
before the Senate following Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Justice Scalia would not answer any questions. As I have
said--and really too apocryphal--Justice Scalia wouldn't
even give his serial number. He would only give his name
and rank. Prisoners of war are compelled to answer
questions, but only three--name, rank, and serial number.
But as I have said, and I have said this to Justice Scalia
in interpersonal banter, he wouldn't even give us his
serial number. But it was perhaps an exhausted Senate
following the confirmation of Chief Justice Rehnquist or
perhaps it was Justice Scalia's superb academic and
professional record, he would not even answer the question
as to whether he would uphold Marbury v. Madison, a
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1803
where the Court undertook the authority to interpret the
Constitution and to interpret the law and to be the final
arbiter of the Constitution. Then in 1987 the Judiciary
Committee considered the nomination of Judge Bork from the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Judge Bork had very
extensive writings in law reviews and books, many
speeches, had a very extensive paper trail, a
controversial paper trail. Judge Bork had written that
absent original intent there was no judicial legitimacy,
and absent judicial legitimacy, there could not be
judicial review. Understandably, the committee had many
questions for Judge Bork, and in that context Judge Bork
felt compelled to answer the questions.
Mr. HATCH. . . . I was impressed at the Rehnquist
funeral to see some 95 former clerks paying respect to
their Chief Justice Rehnquist, some of whom were from
Utah. . . .
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to honor
the birth of one of Virginia's and America's true citizen
soldiers, statesmen, and most important jurists, the
former Chief Justice of the United States, John Marshall.
The 250th commemoration of his birth over the weekend
takes on special significance this week as the Senate
prepares to confirm John Roberts as the 17th Chief Justice
of the United States. He will replace Chief Justice
William Rehnquist, whose decent, dedicated and principled
leadership will be difficult to replace. I am confident
that Judge Roberts will follow in the tradition of
honorable service that was so evident in the work of
former Chief Justices Rehnquist and Marshall. . . .
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise on the advice and
consent question of Judge John Roberts.
Before I address my judgment on that, I would like to
pay tribute for a second to Sandra Day O'Connor and the
late William Rehnquist.
Sandra Day O'Connor's announced retirement caused the
nomination by the President of John Roberts, and
subsequently the untimely passing of Chief Justice
Rehnquist afforded the opportunity for that nomination to
be for Chief Justice as well. In the anticipated furor of
this debate and confirmation, the credit never was given
that should have been to Justice O'Connor or Justice
Rehnquist.
Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman appointed to the
U.S. Supreme Court. She served with honor and distinction.
She wrote brilliantly, concisely, and succinctly, and,
most important of all, she had an insight and wisdom
second to none. In fact, I commend to everyone her final
writing, her dissenting opinion on the eminent domain
case, if you want to see a Justice who was well grounded
and interested in the American people.
William Rehnquist was the 16th Chief Justice of the
United States, an outstanding individual of immense
capacity, dedication, and commitment to the United States
of America. His loss is a tragedy, and the retirement of
Justice O'Connor is a loss to the Court. . . .
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, 25 years from now most of the
events and personalities of September 2005 will have
passed into the pages of history. New Orleans will once
again stand proudly as one of America's most vibrant
cities; America will have been forced to address our need
for energy independence; and the legacies of today's
politicians will be the work of tomorrow's history
professors. However, the confirmation of John Roberts as
the 17th Chief Justice of the United States could well be
even more significant in 2030 than it is today. The
Roberts court will have a profound and historic impact on
the preservation of liberty for decades to come.
I first met John Roberts when we both served in the
Reagan administration in the early 1980s. He is a person
of enormous intelligence, character and judgment. His
performance in his Senate confirmation hearings earlier
this month transcended tv ads, Internet blogs, tv talking
heads, and the million dollar industry that reduces the
judicial nominations process to caricatures and buzz words
across the political spectrum. As many of my colleagues
have noted, the Roberts confirmation hearings forced a
serious examination of the role of the Supreme Court and
the Federal Government in our society.
My beliefs about the role of government were shaped and
molded when I served on the staff of Nebraska Congressman
John Y. McCollister in the 1970s. I remember him warning
America about the wholesale disregard of the 10th
amendment to the Constitution which states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In the late 1930s and early 1940s, the Supreme Court
used Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which gives
the Federal Government the power to ``regulate commerce,''
as a crowbar to pry open the lid of federalism and more
fully insert the Federal Government into the lives of the
American people. By the 1970s, we saw an expansion of the
Federal Government's power our Founders could not have
imagined.
At the same time that Congressman McCollister was
invoking the 10th amendment in the House of
Representatives, Justice William Rehnquist was frequently
the lone voice on the Supreme Court for the discretion of
States and the integrity of the 10th amendment. Much has
been said about William Rehnquist in the last month. He
was a giant of our time. As history considers his legacy,
I believe his ability to move the Court back to a
responsible position concerning federalism will be his
greatest accomplishment. In this, he had a strong ally in
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
The Founders did not arrive at the 10th amendment by
accident. It was a necessary compromise in order to get
the Constitution ratified. The Founders believed that the
Constitution must protect the citizens of the United
States from the consolidation of the Federal Government's
power. History has proven them wise. Well-meaning
politicians never have enough power to do all the good
things they believe are essential to the Nation's well-
being. History shows that the growth of central
governments is no substitute for the ingenuity and energy
of individual citizens.
It was President Woodrow Wilson who said:
The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of
governmental power, not the increase of it.
As we work to address 21st century challenges like
terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and incredible advances in technology, we will
constantly be confronted with the need to balance the
expansion of the Federal Government's power with States
rights, individual liberties and national security. As we
act to secure our Nation, we must also guard against
Federal overreaching. That is why measures like the sunset
provisions in laws like the Patriot Act are so important.
In years to come, Congress will be under great pressure
to reach into areas of law historically reserved for State
and local governments, including land use, education,
economic development, law enforcement and contract law,
including marriage. A wise and judicious Supreme Court
will be as critical as it has ever been to see America
through this volatile time.
Decades from now, if John Roberts can look back upon a
legacy of having protected the rights of States and
individuals while helping strengthen America from within,
and constraining the power of the Federal Government, then
it will be a legacy worthy of succeeding William
Rehnquist.
Mr. VOINOVICH. . . . The Chief Justice is the top
administrator of the Federal Courts, so any nominee to
Chief Justice must possess management skills. Former Chief
Justice Rehnquist was an excellent administrator, so Judge
Roberts has some shoes to fill. . . .
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this is a critical time in
our Nation's history. For the first time in more than a
decade, we have not just one but two vacancies on the U.S.
Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman
Justice and often the critical deciding vote, is retiring,
and Chief Justice Rehnquist, who served on the Court for
more than 33 years, passed away after a courageous battle
with cancer. . . .
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, Senators cast many
important votes--votes to strengthen our highway system,
or to implement a comprehensive energy strategy, for
example--but it is not often we cast a vote that is both
important and truly historic. We do so, however, when we
vote on whether to confirm a nominee to be Chief Justice
of the United States.
There have been 9,869 Members of the House of
Representatives, 1,884 Senators, and 43 Presidents of the
United States, but only 16 Chief Justices. On average,
each Chief Justice serves for well over a decade. Our last
Chief Justice served for 19 years, a little short of two
decades. The occupant of the ``center seat'' on the Court
often has had a profound impact on the shape and substance
of our legal system. But despite such profound effects,
the position of Chief Justice actually got off to a rather
inauspicious start.
The Constitution of the United States mentions the
position of Chief Justice only once. Interestingly, it
does not do so in Article III, which establishes the
judicial branch of our government. Rather, the
Constitution refers to the position of Chief Justice,
almost in passing, only in Article I, which sets forth the
powers of the legislative branch.
There, in Section 3, Clause 6, it discusses the Senate's
procedures for a trial of an impeached President, stating
that ``When the President of the United States is tried,
the Chief Justice shall preside.'' That is the sum and
substance of his constitutional authority.
The Judiciary Act of 1789, which established the Federal
court system, did not add much to the Chief Justice's
responsibilities. It specified merely that ``the supreme
court of the United States shall consist of a chief
justice and five associate justices.''
It is not surprising, then, that the position of Chief
Justice initially was not viewed as particularly
important. Indeed, the first Chief Justice, John Jay, left
completely disillusioned, believing that neither the Court
nor the post would ever amount to very much.
It took George Washington four tries to find Jay's
successor, as prominent people repeatedly turned him down.
They were turning down George Washington's offers to make
them the Chief Justice of the United States.
With such humble constitutional roots for the office,
the power, prestige, and independence of the Supreme Court
and the Federal court system in general often has been
tied to the particular personal qualities of those who
have served as Chief Justice.
John Marshall was our first great Chief Justice. His
twin legacies were to increase respect for the Court and,
relatedly, its power as well. He worked to establish
clear, unanimous opinions for the Court, and his opinion
in Marbury v. Madison forever cemented the Court as a co-
equal branch of government.
Marshall's successes were viewed, then as now, as a
function of his formidable personal qualities. He is said
to have had a ``first-class mind and a thoroughly engaging
personality.'' Thomas Jefferson, for example, tried, in
vain, to break his influence on the Court. In writing to
James Madison, his successor, about Supreme Court
appointments, Jefferson said:
[I]t will be difficult to find a character of firmness
to preserve his independence on the same bench with
Marshall.
That is Thomas Jefferson speaking about Chief Justice
Marshall.
I find myself agreeing with the columnist George Will,
who wrote recently in one of his columns:
Marshall is the most important American never to have
been President.
William Howard Taft and Charles Evans Hughes also used
their individual talents to become great Chief Justices.
Taft, the only Chief Justice to serve also as President,
which was prior to that, had a singular determination to
modernize the Federal courts. He used his energy and his
political acumen to convince Congress to establish what is
now the Judicial Conference of the United States to
administer the Federal courts; enact the Judiciary Act of
1925, which allowed the Court to decide the cases it would
hear; and, before he left office, to give the Court its
first, and current, permanent home--a stone's throw from
where we stand today, across the East Lawn of the Capitol.
A fellow Justice called Charles Evans Hughes ``the
greatest in a great line of Chief Justices.'' He was known
for his leadership in running the Court and for constantly
working to enhance the public's confidence in the Court.
His successes were at least partly due to his keen
appreciation of the limits of that office. This is what
Charles Evans Hughes had to say:
The Chief Justice as the head of the Court has an
outstanding position, but in a small body of able men with
equal authority in the making of decisions, it is evident
that his actual influence will depend on the strength of
his character and the demonstration of his ability in the
intimate relations of the judges.
Hughes was famous for the efficient, skillful, and
courteous way in which he presided at oral argument, ran
the Court's conferences, and assigned opinions, calling
the latter his ``most delicate task.'' But his greatest
service may have been in spearheading public opposition to
FDR's court-packing plan.
Our last great Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, may be
said to have possessed the best qualities of Marshall,
Taft, and Hughes. He had an exceptional mind, an engaging
personality, boundless energy, and a courteous and
professional manner. These qualities helped him
revolutionize Federal jurisprudence, administer the
Supreme Court and the court system very efficiently, and
interact constructively with those of us here in Congress.
. . .
Friday, September 30, 2005
Mr. ALLEN. On September 3, 2005, America lost one of its
greatest public servants when, following a year-long
battle with cancer, William Hubbs Rehnquist passed away at
the age of 80. At the time of his death, he had been a
member of the U.S. Supreme Court for 33 distinguished
years, having served as Chief Justice since 1986 and
previously as an Associate Justice, appointed in 1972.
Much of William Rehnquist's professional career was
dedicated to public service. He served his country
honorably in the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II
from 1943 to 1946. After his military service, he earned
an undergraduate, a master's and a law degree from
Stanford University. Even further demonstrating his
intellectual acumen, Rehnquist also graduated with a
master's degree from Harvard University and was first in
his class at Stanford University Law School. After law
school, he became a Supreme Court clerk for Associate
Justice Robert Jackson before leaving for private practice
in Arizona. In 1969, Chief Justice Rehnquist joined the
Nixon administration as an Assistant Attorney General
where he served until 1971. That year, President Nixon
nominated William H. Rehnquist to be on the Supreme Court;
the following year, he was confirmed to be an Associate
Justice by the U.S. Senate.
It was on the Supreme Court that William Rehnquist built
his reputation as one of the great legal minds of our
time. His tenure on the High Court of the land, both as an
Associate Justice and as the Chief Justice, was an
extraordinary achievement. I was particularly impressed
with his leadership as the head of the entire Federal
judiciary, as well as his affable personal demeanor on the
bench and off, both of which were important traits in his
role as Chief.
I respect immensely the way in which Chief Justice
Rehnquist served on the Court with honor and restraint. As
a Justice, he fairly and properly interpreted the words of
the Constitution without usurping the rights of the
American people and those of the States to make laws as
they deem appropriate rather than allowing un-elected
judges who are appointed for life to substitute their
personal political views for the popular will of the
people.
Chief Justice Rehnquist clearly understood that judges
ought to apply the law and Constitution, not invent the
law or amend the Constitution by judicial decree. And I
believe that he perfectly embodied what I consider to be
the proper role of a Justice and that America should be
grateful for his long and distinguished public service on
the bench.
Our Nation was so fortunate to have a man of William
Rehnquist's intelligence and legal experience in public
service for so many years. As a Supreme Court Justice, he
was a decent, dedicated, steady, and principled jurist
whose legal brilliance and knowledge will be difficult to
replace. Chief Justice Rehnquist deserves America's
gratitude for his over three decades of dedicated service
on the Supreme Court and a life devoted to the service of
this great Nation and its citizens.
My condolences go out to his family, in particular his
three children, James, Janet, and Nancy, during this
difficult time.
May he rest in peace.
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I was deeply saddened to learn
of the passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He will
most certainly be remembered as one of this Nation's
greatest Chief Justices.
During his 33 years of distinguished service on the High
Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist served with tremendous
wisdom, skill, and intellect. His legacy will be defined
by his calm and steady leadership, his staunch defense of
the Constitution, and his support of an independent
judiciary.
Born into a modest home in the Midwest, Rehnquist
enlisted in the Army at age 19 during World War II. He
went on to have a very impressive academic career, earning
bachelor's and master's degrees in political science from
Stanford University. In 1950, Rehnquist received a
master's degree in government from Harvard University. He
later returned to Stanford Law School, where he graduated
first in his class and served as the editor of the law
review.
After law school, Rehnquist served as a law clerk to
Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. He then
settled in Phoenix, AZ, with his wife Nancy, where he
spent 20 years in successful private practice. In 1968,
Rehnquist returned to Washington, DC, to serve as
President Nixon's Assistant Attorney General in the Office
of Legal Counsel. In 1972, William Rehnquist became the
100th Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
I expect we will hear much discussion in the coming
years about the legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist. But I
am confident that a significant part of his legacy, his
strong leadership of the Court, will be unquestionable.
President Bush said at Rehnquist's memorial service, ``He
built consensus through openness and collegiality.''
Likewise, praise from so many of his colleagues and
friends serve as a true testament to William Rehnquist's
ability to treat people graciously and fairly, both from
the bench and in his personal life.
The praise for his professional life is certainly
plentiful, but we know that most important to William
Rehnquist was his family. He was greatly loved as a
husband, father, grandfather, and uncle. His daughters
Nancy and Janet joked that dating your father was
completely underrated, after they had the pleasure of
accompanying their father around Washington and on foreign
trips after the death of their mother. He was a family
man, first and foremost.
Chief Justice Rehnquist deserves our praise and our
tremendous gratitude for his dedicated service to this
country. Our Nation mourns the passing of this great man.
The significant contributions he made, personally and
professionally, will certainly be remembered always.
Proceedings in the
House of Representatives
Tuesday, September 6, 2005
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its
clerks, announced that the Senate has passed a concurrent
resolution of the following title in which the concurrence
of the House is requested:
S. Con. Res. 52. Concurrent resolution providing for the
use of the catafalque situated in the crypt beneath the
Rotunda of the Capitol in connection with memorial
services to be conducted in the Supreme Court Building for
the late honorable William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of
the United States.
COMMUNICATION FROM ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert) laid before the
House the following communication from Antonin Scalia,
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States:
Supreme Court of the United States,
Washington, DC, September 6, 2005.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify the House of
Representatives, through you, that the Chief Justice of
the United States died in Arlington, Virginia, on
Saturday, September 3, 2005.
Very truly yours,
Antonin Scalia,
Associate Justice.
Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged
resolution (H. Res. 422) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 422
Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow
of the death of the Honorable William H. Rehnquist; Chief
Justice of the United States.
Resolved, That the House tenders its deep sympathy to
the members of the family of the late Chief Justice in
their bereavement.
Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions
to the Senate and to the Supreme Court and transmit a copy
of the same to the family of the late Chief Justice.
Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn
as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late
Chief Justice.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
take from the Speaker's table the Senate concurrent
resolution (S. Con. Res. 52) providing for the use of the
catafalque situated in the crypt beneath the Rotunda of
the Capitol in connection with memorial services to be
conducted in the Supreme Court Building for the late
Honorable William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the
United States, and ask for its immediate consideration in
the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as
follows:
S. Con. Res. 52
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That the Architect of the Capitol is
authorized and directed to transfer to the custody of the
Supreme Court of the United States the catafalque which is
situated in the crypt beneath the Rotunda of the Capitol
so that such catafalque may be used in the Supreme Court
Building in connection with services to be conducted there
for the late honorable William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice
of the United States.
The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
422, I move that the House do now adjourn in memory of the
late Honorable William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the
United States.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and
44 minutes p.m.), pursuant to House Resolution 422, the
House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, September 7,
2005, at 10 a.m. in memory of the late Honorable William
H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States.
Wednesday, September 7, 2005
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered
the following prayer:
Since justice and judgment are the foundation of Your
throne, Lord God; because You love those who hate evil and
guard the lives of Your faithful ones, Lord, we know that
You welcome into the heavenly court Your servant, Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist.
May his legacy continue to guide this Chamber, the
provisions of the courts of this land and the citizens
governed; to seek the truth behind every dispute and
deferring opinion, to work for equal justice under the law
for all Your people.
Eternal rest and reward grant unto him, O Lord. Amen.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today our
thoughts and prayers are with the Rehnquist family and our
Nation. As we celebrate the life of Chief Justice William
Rehnquist today, we mourn the loss of a true leader who
made the most of his unique opportunity to help the
American people. He was a skilled judge and a brilliant
man who devoted over a third of his life to ensuring that
our highest court fairly upheld our laws.
From fighting excessive Federal laws as an Associate
Justice to battling cancer as Chief Justice, Rehnquist
embodied determination and conviction throughout his
tenure. Often the lone vote on an issue, he remained true
to his conservative beliefs and worked tirelessly to
ensure that justice was fairly delivered, and efficiently.
Because of his monumental impact on our legal system, he
earned a valuable place in our Nation's history.
As his family and friends gather today, I would like to
express my sincere respect and gratitude for the life and
work of Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never
forget September 11.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that it shall be in order at any time to consider in the
House the resolution (H. Res. 423); the resolution shall
be considered as read; and the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution to its adoption
without intervening motion or demand for division of the
question except: (1) 1 hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of
the House entered into previously today, I call up the
resolution (H. Res. 423) honoring and recognizing the
distinguished service, career, and achievements of Chief
Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist upon his death, and for
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of House Resolution 423 is as follows:
H. Res. 423
Whereas William H. Rehnquist was born on October 1,
1924, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and grew up the son of a
paper salesman;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist served the United States in
the Army Air Corps during World War II;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist attended and graduated from
Stanford University, earning a bachelor's and master's
degree in political science, and a second master's degree
in government from Harvard University;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist went on to graduate first
in his class at Stanford Law School in 1952, where he met
his wife Natalie ``Nan'' Cornell;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist and Natalie had three
children: James, Janet, and Nancy;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist served as a law clerk to
Justice Robert H. Jackson on the Supreme Court during the
1951 and 1952 terms, and as Assistant Attorney General for
the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, where he
advised the Nixon Administration on constitutional law
from 1969 until 1971;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist was appointed by President
Nixon and confirmed by the Senate as an Associate Justice
of the United States on December 10, 1971, at the age of
47;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist was appointed by President
Reagan and confirmed by the Senate as the 16th Chief
Justice of the United States in 1986;
Whereas Chief Justice Rehnquist's 33-year tenure on the
Supreme Court was one of the longest and most influential
in the Nation's history;
Whereas legal scholars of all perspectives rank Chief
Justice Rehnquist as among the great Chief Justices of the
United States who influenced the interpretation of the law
in significant ways;
Whereas Chief Justice Rehnquist was widely respected for
his evenhandedness as Chief Justice; and
Whereas on January 7, 2002, the 30th Anniversary of his
swearing in at the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul
Stevens praised Chief Justice Rehnquist for ``the
efficiency, good humor and absolute impartiality that you
have consistently displayed when presiding at our
Conferences'': Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) has learned with profound sorrow of the death of
Chief Justice Rehnquist; and
(2) honors, recognizes, and expresses gratitude for the
distinguished service, career, and achievements of William
H. Rehnquist upon his death.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the
House of today, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution
423 which honors and recognizes the distinguished service,
career, and achievements of Chief Justice William Hubbs
Rehnquist upon his death.
Mr. Speaker, the passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist
means that a long and distinguished career has come to an
end. William Rehnquist was born on October 1, 1924, in
Milwaukee, WI, and was raised in nearby Shorewood, WI,
which currently lies in the congressional district I am
proud to represent. The future Chief Justice attended
Kenyon College briefly before joining the U.S. Army Air
Corps during World War II.
Following his career in the Army, Chief Justice
Rehnquist attended and graduated from Stanford University,
where he received a bachelor's and master's degree in
political science and a second master's degree in
government from Harvard University.
At Stanford Law School, the future Chief Justice
graduated first in the class that famously included his
future colleague, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. It was also
at Stanford Law School that the Chief Justice met his
future wife, Natalie ``Nan'' Cornell, whom he married in
1953.
After graduation, William Rehnquist clerked for Supreme
Court Justice Robert H. Jackson for the 1952 and 1953
terms. He then went on to practice as an attorney in his
adopted home State of Arizona for several years before
returning to Washington, DC, to serve as Assistant
Attorney General for the Justice Department's Office of
Legal Counsel, where he advised the Nixon administration
on constitutional law from 1969 until 1971.
On October 22, 1971, President Nixon nominated William
Rehnquist to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court
created by Justice John Marshall Harlan's retirement. The
Senate confirmed him to the post of Associate Justice on
December 10, 1971, and he was sworn into office on January
7, 1972, at the age of 47.
Under his leadership, federalism, judicial restraint,
and State autonomy once again became staple features of
the Court's jurisprudence. Chief Justice Rehnquist deeply
respected the proper roles of each branch of government
and the separation of powers envisioned by our Founders.
He repeatedly acknowledged that the first amendment to the
Constitution guaranteed the free exercise of religion.
By the time President Reagan nominated him to become the
16th Chief Justice of the United States on June 20, 1986,
to replace Warren Burger, the pieces were in place for the
Chief Justice to make a profound impact on American
jurisprudence. His commitment to his principles were
evidenced in his majority opinion upholding Cleveland,
Ohio's program of school vouchers, which allowed public
school students in poor areas to use vouchers to attend
better, and often religious, schools, against an
establishment clause challenge. His support for freedom of
religion was also evidenced in his concurring opinion of
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, in which he
rightly concluded that the phrase ``under God'' in the
Pledge of Allegiance was not a violation of the
establishment clause.
Most recently, Chief Justice Rehnquist joined Justice
O'Connor's dissent in Kelo v. City of New London in which
they correctly concluded that it is a violation of the
fifth amendment's public use clause when a government
takes private property and gives it to another private
entity to use for private commercial purposes.
Apart from the doctrinal changes the Chief Justice
brought to the Court, he also streamlined the manner in
which the Court operated. His keen intellect and
evenhandedness were appreciated by all of his colleagues.
On the 30th anniversary of Rehnquist's swearing in,
Justice John Paul Stevens, who often found himself on the
opposite side of opinions from the Chief Justice, praised
him for the ``efficiency, good humor, and absolute
impartiality that you have consistently displayed when
presiding at our conferences.'' These traits have led
observers of all political persuasions to view Chief
Justice Rehnquist as one of the most consequential jurists
in our history.
When Chief Justice Rehnquist was diagnosed with thyroid
cancer in October 2004, many of his admirers feared that
his tenure on the Court would come to an end. The Chief
Justice, however, had other plans and continued to make
his presence felt on the Court even as he battled his
disease. Unfortunately, last Saturday, Chief Justice
Rehnquist lost that battle, and the country has lost a
great intellect and a great public servant. His decision
to swear in President George W. Bush last January while
battling his illness inspired millions of Americans.
From a personal standpoint, let me say that I first met
the future Chief Justice back in 1968 going door to door
while running for a seat in the Wisconsin Assembly, and
when I knocked on his parents' door, they introduced me to
the Chief Justice-to-be, and he and I have kept contact up
for a number of years until he passed away, both before he
was selected for the Court and I was elected to the
Congress.
As the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, let
me say that I deeply appreciated the Chief Justice's
invitations to address the twice-yearly meetings of the
Judicial Conference of the United States on issues
relating to the separation of powers and the
interrelationship to how the laws the Congress passes
relate to the operation of the third branch of government.
I can say that the Chief Justice was extremely responsive
when I had complained that the judicial discipline statute
enacted in 1980 was not being utilized properly and
effectively in terms of disciplining judges in the appeals
court and in the lower Federal courts that may have
strayed from the bounds of propriety and the ethical
standards that we hope all of the judges will uphold.
I can say that probably one of my most profound memories
of the Chief Justice was at a Judicial Conference meeting
on the morning of September 11, 2001, where, because I had
the first three bills up on the floor at 10 o'clock, the
Chief Justice put me on first. At that time the Twin
Towers had both been hit, and the Chief Justice came in,
sat down and said, ``Jim, make this snappy. Something bad
is going on.''
So my remarks got condensed to a minute and a half and
the Chief Justice said, ``There are no questions of the
chairman, are there?'' And everybody else in the room got
the message, so I was then excused, and when I got here to
the Capitol to make the three motions for suspensions of
the rules, the Pentagon had already been hit. So the Chief
Justice, I think, was advised that we were all in danger,
he wanted to get the business done despite the danger, and
he was able to do that. I think that this shows his
character, and that touched me in an extremely personal
way.
While the country has lost so much, his family,
including his children James, Nancy, and Janet, and his
six grandchildren have lost a loving family member as
well. I know that the whole House will join me in
extending our condolences to his family and our thanks for
his great service to this country. I hope that all Members
will join me in supporting House Resolution 423 honoring,
recognizing, and expressing our gratitude for the
distinguished service, career, and achievements of Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate the life of Chief
Justice Rehnquist. Chief Justice Rehnquist was devoted to
the highest court of the land and, more broadly, to our
system of justice; and throughout his long tenure, he
served them both admirably. During his 33 years on the
Court, 19 of which were as Chief Justice, he chartered a
definitive path which reflected his philosophy and left an
unquestionable impact on the direction of the Court.
In his early years on the Court, at a time when his
approach to constitutional interpretation often was not
shared by a majority on the Court, Justice Rehnquist stuck
closely to his principles, earning him the moniker ``The
Lone Ranger.'' Over time, he was joined by other Justices
who shared his ideology, and he was able to craft
majorities that moved the Court toward adopting his vision
of the law. To his great credit, when faced with a
conflict between his own strongly held position and the
dictates of stare decisis, as happened with recent efforts
to limit the Miranda decision, he frequently sided with
precedent.
While it is fair to say that over the years on decisions
which have split the Court, I have probably disagreed with
Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinions more often than I have
agreed with them; however, I have admired many of his
efforts to protect the independence of the judiciary and
his willingness to criticize his own party.
Chief Justice Rehnquist often stated his discomfort with
Congress encroaching on a court's prerogative in an
attempt to guard judicial independence. He lashed out at
those attempting to impeach judicial activists and
threaten judges for rulings they did not like. ``The
Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit
judges but to promote the rule of law. Judges are expected
to administer the law fairly, without regard to public
reaction,'' he once said.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist also criticized
Congress for repeatedly enacting Federal criminal laws
that overlap State laws. The States have the primary role
in the area of crime and law enforcement, he said in his
annual message on the judiciary, and Congress needs to
think twice before turning ``every highly publicized
societal ill or sensational crime'' into a new Federal
law. ``The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally
have been handled in State courts not only is taxing the
judiciary's resources,'' he said, ``but it also threatens
to change entirely the nature of the Federal system.
Federal courts were not created to adjudicate local
crimes, no matter how sensational or heinous the crimes
may be. State courts do, can, and should handle such
problems.''
The impact of Congress having relegated more complex and
time-consuming cases appropriate for State court
adjudication to Federal jurisdiction, such as Congress did
with class action reform, warranted Rehnquist's rebuke:
Congress should commit itself to conserving the Federal
courts as a distinctive judicial forum of limited
jurisdiction in our system of federalism. Civil and
criminal jurisdiction should be assigned to the Federal
courts only to further clearly define national interests,
leaving to the State courts the responsibility for
adjudicating all other matters. This long-range plan for
Federal courts is based not simply on the preferences of
Federal judges but on the traditional principle of
federalism that has guided this country throughout its
existence.
As noted by the New York Times, Chief Justice Rehnquist
was also duly critical of hastily enacted limitations on
judicial sentencing decisions and the potential damage
that compiling information on the sentencing habits of
individual judges could do to fair and impartial Justices.
Chief Justice Rehnquist plainly saw his role as defender
in chief of the Nation's independent court system, which
he famously called ``one of the crown jewels of our system
of government.''
His often practical approach to immeasurably weighty
responsibility of having one out of nine votes on the most
powerful court in the country reflected his devotion and
respect for the institution of the Supreme Court and its
effect on the lives of all Americans. Nowhere did Chief
Justice Rehnquist's love for the Court shine through more
than in his numerous books on Supreme Court history and
lore.
Chief Justice Rehnquist also displayed considerable
skill in managing an often divided Court. His colleagues
have spoken of his deft ability, good humor, and
impartiality as he led the Court through landmark cases.
On top of this, he served for nearly two decades as the
chief judicial officer of the Nation's Federal court
system, constantly advocating for the resources needed to
improve the courts' mission of delivering evenhanded
justice throughout the Nation.
I would commend to my colleagues the op-ed piece in the
New York Times yesterday by Laurence Tribe, a frequent
litigator in the Supreme Court who argued many, many
cases, who speaks of Chief Justice Rehnquist's career
there and finds many, many reasons to praise and admire
him. He closes his article urging that as the Senate now
considers the confirmation of a new Chief Justice, they
look to one of the issues that he felt Chief Justice
Rehnquist so ably stood for and that is the ability of new
Justices to help the Court earn the respect of all who
take part in its proceedings or are affected by its
rulings, which means everyone. ``Chief Justice
Rehnquist,'' Professor Tribe noted, ``was a master at that
mission. For that, and for the steadiness of his
leadership, I will always remember him with profound
gratitude and admiration.''
We are all saddened by the loss of Chief Justice William
Rehnquist. As we mourn his death, regardless of our
political differences, we must remember how he selflessly
gave to the Court and the Nation. His work is an important
legacy that impacts every American's life and will shape
the lives of future generations. I join the Nation in
applauding his accomplishments, and I express my sympathy
for our collective loss.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, not unlike the gentleman from
Wisconsin, I also appeared at the Supreme Court on 9/11 to
address the judicial conference. Just as I approached the
podium, the Chief Justice handed me a note which read:
``The Pentagon has been bombed.'' I thought perhaps they
did not know about the World Trade Center because they had
been in session the entire morning, and I said, ``No,
Chief, it's the World Trade Center.'' He said, ``No,
Howard, it's the Pentagon here.'' My staff, Mr. Speaker,
admonishes me to this day for not having retained that
piece of paper. It would have been a nice personal
memento. Each time I saw the Chief after that, he or I
mentioned that exchange between us.
Not unlike the gentleman from Wisconsin, I did not know
the Chief that intimately, but I think he was an
outstanding Chief Justice. Each time I saw him, he or I
mentioned that exchange between us on 9/11.
If I could describe him very briefly, I would say a man
blessed with supreme intellect; a warm, cordial demeanor;
an outstanding Chief Justice; an outstanding jurist; an
outstanding citizen; an outstanding gentleman. He will
indeed be missed. I join my colleagues in extending our
sincere condolences to the family of this great man.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Constitution
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I want to take
this opportunity to honor the late Chief Justice William
Hubbs Rehnquist. Our country was privileged to have Chief
Justice Rehnquist serve as a member of our Supreme Court
for 33 years, the last 19 years, as we know, as Chief
Justice. Once considered the maverick lone star Justice
for his solo dissents, he eventually led a majority which
perhaps most importantly favored a shift in power from
Washington back to the States where it belongs.
Among other challenges he met during his tenure, Chief
Justice Rehnquist presided over the impeachment trial of a
President, President Clinton. Having served as one of the
House managers myself, I can say that he did so with an
evenhanded approach, showing fairness and dignity to both
sides. Also, notably, he was the last member of the Court
who voted on the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, dissenting
from that ruling that legalized abortion. I will always
appreciate his respect for the value of human life and his
commitment to this body and local government's making
decisions to protect life, such as the ban on partial-
birth abortion.
Through his opinions, the Chief Justice showed that an
active Court could uphold conservative policy through
judicial restraint. As we begin the process of finding a
replacement for Chief Justice Rehnquist, I hope that we
will remember the important impact of his presence on the
Court and his commitment to upholding the text and history
of the Constitution.
His strength and dedication to our country could be seen
most recently when he fulfilled his duties of swearing in
our 43d President for the second time while battling
terminal thyroid cancer. Let us remember this, I believe,
historic Chief Justice for his love of the law and his
love for his country. Our thoughts and prayers are with
his family on this day.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, Chief Justice Rehnquist was a
man of great intellect on a Court that is saturated with
great intellect. He was also a man of vast common sense.
Unfortunately, common sense was not so well and evenly
distributed on the Court. Nonetheless, as a gentle man, a
man of class, a man of integrity, he brought great wisdom
and great honor to the Court. As a former prosecutor, a
former district judge, a former chief justice of an
appellate court in Texas, I watched his actions, I read
his opinions and appreciated his great intellectual
honesty and appreciation for the Constitution. He was a
rare man, a man who brought great honor upon the Court,
upon this country, and upon the Constitution. He will be
sorely missed. It is with great respect that we extend our
sympathy and our sincere best wishes and our prayers to
the family and those closest to the Chief Justice. We all
mourn the loss of a very great American.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I join all of my colleagues in
expressing our deepest condolences to the family of Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist. I mourn his loss, and I
thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and
the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for introducing
this resolution.
I had the privilege yesterday of paying my respects to
the Chief Justice as he lay in repose at the Great Hall.
As I prayed, I thought of the great courage he displayed
in the last few months, and his devotion to duty, even in
the face of illness.
As a Nation, today we honor his memory and a lifetime of
dedicated public service. Chief Justice Rehnquist was a
man of great intellect and passion for the Supreme Court
and its traditions, who was an outstanding leader and
administrator of the judiciary. He was not only a student
of history, an author of books on American history, but he
also wrote chapters in our Nation's history as Chief
Justice.
As a law clerk to a great Justice, Robert Jackson, he
formed an early appreciation for the institution that he
would serve in a long and distinguished career. As Justice
John Paul Stevens noted, Chief Justice Rehnquist set an
exemplary example as leader of the Court. His colleagues
uniformly spoke of his fair and impartial leadership of
their proceedings, and of his efforts to prevent
disagreements from becoming personal.
His legacy is his steadfast and proud defense of an
independent judiciary. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said
on Sunday: ``He regarded an independent judiciary as our
country's hallmark and pride, and in his annual reports,
he constantly urged Congress to safeguard that
independence.''
I hope all of us in Congress will honor his legacy by
preserving an independent judiciary. It is our oath of
office to protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States--and that means protecting an independent
judiciary free of manipulation and intimidation.
As the New York Times noted this morning, Chief Justice
Rehnquist disapproved of recent congressional attempts to
``intimidate individual judges, strip federal courts of
jurisdiction to decide certain constitutional challenges,
and otherwise undermine the constitutional separation of
powers and checks and balances.'' In his last annual
report, the Chief Justice wrote that ``A judge's judicial
acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment. Any other
rule would destroy judicial independence.''
An independent judiciary has served for more than two
centuries as the guardian of our constitutional liberties
and as the words on the Supreme Court building so nobly
state, has ensured ``equal justice under law.'' We must
preserve an independent judiciary and honor his memory by
doing so.
It is with sadness and respect that I extend my
sympathies to Chief Justice Rehnquist's family and
friends. I hope it is a comfort that so many people are
praying for them at this sad time. He will long be
remembered and missed.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
pay tribute to one of the most influential jurists of the
20th century, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the 16th
Chief Justice of the United States, upon his passing on
the evening of Saturday, September 3, 2005.
First appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate
Justice by President Richard Nixon in 1972, Rehnquist
would go on to serve for 33 years, the final 19 of which
as Chief Justice. During his time on the Court, Rehnquist
earned the reputation as a conservative intellectual who
would challenge the status quo in the name of judicial
restraint and federalism principles. He respected the
Court's role as an independent body whose role was not to
legislate subjectively on the issues of the day; but
rather to serve as the objective arbiter of the rule of
law.
Notwithstanding the politically charged nature of the
Court during the latter half of the 20th century,
Rehnquist was very well liked and respected by all his
colleagues, even those with whom he frequently disagreed.
In fact, Justice John Paul Stevens, the Justice with whom
Rehnquist most frequently disagreed, commented on ``the
efficiency, good humor and absolute impartiality that
[Rehnquist had] consistently displayed when presiding at
[Supreme Court] Conferences.'' This ability to work
closely with all of his colleagues was a testament to
Chief Justice Rehnquist's affability, professionalism and
evenhandedness.
Not only will Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist be
missed as a jurist, he will also be missed as a loving
family man. Though his wife preceded him in death, he is
survived by three wonderful children to whom he no doubt
passed his strong work ethic, patriotism, and deep and
abiding respect for our American institutions.
In closing Mr. Speaker, please let me extend my
condolences to Chief Justice Rehnquist's family and
friends on their loss. He was a great American and will be
missed by us all.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to the
order of the House of today, the resolution is considered
read and the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kirk). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Carter) is recognized for 60 minutes as the
designee of the majority leader.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the recognition,
and I rise this evening to discuss a man and a history on
the bench, judicial bench, that probably will be recorded
as one of the great careers in the legal profession in the
history of the United States. I am referring to Chief
Justice William Rehnquist.
Today we laid to rest Chief Justice William Rehnquist,
who has served this country and served it well for many,
many years. Chief Justice Rehnquist is going to be sorely
missed by the citizens of this country. His wisdom and his
leadership and his all-around ability to unite and work
with every faction of the Supreme Court has been an
inspiration to all of the citizens of this country.
He served tirelessly with great wisdom, judgment, and
leadership. He leaves behind a legacy as one of the most
influential Chief Justices in our Nation's history; and
today, in sadness, we bid him farewell, and we say to
Chief Justice Rehnquist, a job well done.
A native of Milwaukee, WI, William Rehnquist grew up in
the nearby suburb of Shorewood. His father, the son of
Swedish immigrant parents, worked as a paper salesman, and
his mother as a multilingual professional translator.
I come from a part of Texas which has a large Swedish
heritage, and I am sure that Chief Justice Rehnquist got
his base principles established by that Swedish heritage
that he grew up in.
After service in World War II with the Army Air Corps
from 1943 to 1946, and with the assistance of the GI bill,
Rehnquist earned bachelor's and master's degrees in
political science from Stanford University, finishing in
1948. In 1950 he received a master's degree in government
from Harvard. Rehnquist later returned to Stanford
University to attend law school, where he graduated first
in his class in 1952, even ahead of Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor, currently serving on the Court. He also served
as the editor of the Law Review.
Rehnquist served as a law clerk for Associate Supreme
Court Justice Robert Jackson both in 1951 and 1952.
Following his clerkship, he settled in Phoenix, AZ, where
he was in private practice from 1953 to 1969.
In 1964 he also served as a legal advisor to the Barry
Goldwater Presidential campaign.
When President Nixon was elected in 1968, Rehnquist
returned to Washington, DC, to serve as Assistant Attorney
General in the Office of Legal Counsel. In this position
Rehnquist served as the Chief Legal Counsel to the
Attorney General. He served as Assistant Attorney General
in the Office of Legal Counsel until 1971, when President
Nixon nominated him to replace John Marshall Harlan on the
Supreme Court.
During his time in the Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist
authored countless landmark decisions and thought-
provoking dissents. He carefully reasoned his opinions and
insisted that the principle of federalism is an integral
part of our Nation's constitutional structure. His
opinions recognized that our government is one of
enumerated rights and dual sovereignty, with certain
functions and powers left to the States.
His jurisprudence has shown that the first amendment
establishment clause does not dictate government hostility
toward religion. Rather, the government should act in a
manner which respects our freedom to worship as we please,
neither favoring nor disfavoring religion.
The last 19 years have shown that Chief Justice
Rehnquist was a terrific choice to lead the Supreme Court.
Though some of his colleagues on the Court disagreed with
him at times, there is no doubt that they admired his
strong leadership and his likable personality and his
ability to build a consensus. While always a forceful
advocate for his views, the Chief Justice consistently
strove for consensus on the Court and treated his
colleagues with courtesy and respect.
It is thanks to his personal attributes that even in an
age of 5 to 4 decisions, the Court never descended into
bitter infighting. Instead, Chief Justice Rehnquist led a
court united by friendship, committed to the law and
service to our country.
One example of Chief Justice Rehnquist's commitment to
the law is his opinion in Dickerson v. The United States.
Although a long-time critic of Miranda v. Arizona,
Rehnquist nevertheless placed his past position aside and
wrote an opinion in Dickerson effectively affirming
Miranda.
In 1999 Chief Justice Rehnquist lent his services to the
Senate when he became only the second Chief Justice in
history to preside over a Presidential impeachment in the
trial of President Clinton. During that difficult time,
with the Nation and some of its Senators locked in
partisan struggle, the Chief Justice's very presence
reminded us of the solemn legal duties the Constitution
requires of the Senate.
A historian of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice
Rehnquist authored three books on the history of the Court
and the American legal system.
As Chief Justice, Mr. Rehnquist led not only the Supreme
Court but the entire third branch of government. In that
role he was an eloquent advocate for a strong and
independent judiciary. In his annual reports on the
judiciary and other public pronouncements, Chief Justice
Rehnquist championed the interest of the judicial branch,
earning praise from judges of all jurisdictional stripes.
At all times Chief Justice Rehnquist performed his
duties of office with nobility and courage. Even in his
recent sickness, he found the strength to administer the
oath of office to President Bush and to consider the
challenging cases that came before the Court.
Peggy Noonan wrote of President Bush's inauguration:
And the most poignant moment was the manful William
Rehnquist, unable to wear a tie and making his way down
the long marble steps to swear in the President. The
continuation of democracy is made possible by such
gallantry.
Our Nation is deeply indebted to William Rehnquist.
Above all, the rule of law was paramount for Chief Justice
Rehnquist. He understood that our government cannot
survive without a judiciary that places the rule of law
above politics.
Chief Justice Rehnquist has tirelessly served our Nation
for the last three decades, and he serves a permanent
legacy as one of the great Supreme Court Justices. The
next Chief Justice will surely have big shoes to fill.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield as much
time as he wishes to consume to my colleague, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank
you. We call you Judge Carter here in this institution.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) has
earned a great deal of respect in this institution because
he is not only a man who brings judicial experience to
this body, but he is someone whom we can all trust. He is
someone who we know has a heart that burns with
patriotism, for love for his country, for love for his
fellow human beings and just a commitment to human
freedom.
And I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that it is my
precious honor to serve with a man like Judge Carter. You
know, and perhaps that is all too appropriate tonight as
we speak of judges, because we talk sometimes of judges
legislating from the bench. Maybe Judge Carter comes to
this body with just the kind of experience he needs to
have. But we are grateful that he is a man who did not
legislate from the bench, and that he understands the
difference between the judiciary and the legislative body.
And with that, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to pay a
few words tonight of tribute to a towering figure in our
country, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
The era of the Rehnquist court has come to a close, and
William H. Rehnquist has stepped quietly into the arms of
God. Chief Justice Rehnquist was one of America's great
Chief Justices. This Nation has suffered a great loss with
his passing, and as twilight falls upon this remarkable
man's career, the most notable elements of his
extraordinary legacy must not be lost to revisionist
history, Mr. Speaker, because in his tireless defense of
the U.S. Constitution, Chief Rehnquist strongly advocated
for a judiciary that applies the law rather than
legislates from the bench.
We, as Americans, should be very grateful for our
Founding Fathers and for the genius of the constitutional
system that they left to us. It was a framework that
protects human dignity and individual freedom by enforcing
limits on government power. It is incumbent upon us and
future generations to jealously guard that precious gift
bestowed upon us by our forebears.
Chief Justice Rehnquist spent decades on the highest
court in the land acting as the Constitution's protector.
He was a constitutional originalist, defending the process
of interpretation of the law that is constrained by the
text and the original meaning of that great document.
Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental reason why we, as a
self-governing people, so carefully put pen to paper to
memorialize our Constitution and our laws and our great
founding documents. They are written words that have
become an agreement between the people and the government.
We write it all down to keep a record and an understanding
of the limits placed on government by the will of the
people.
Chief Justice Rehnquist advanced this understanding that
at times the Federal courts must enforce limitations on
Federal power while recognizing the preeminent role of
democratically elected institutions at both the State and
Federal levels. Chief Justice Rehnquist was a valiant
defender of States rights in recognition of the
superiority of a federalist system when governing peoples
of divergent views, divergent faith and cultures.
He was an influential man in leading the Court back
toward the original intent of the Constitution after
decades of abuse by a liberal activist Court born of the
Roosevelt era and the New Deal philosophy.
Mr. Speaker, that New Deal activist Court actually
delivered such bizarre rulings as in Wickard v. Filburn, a
ruling that a man in Ohio who was growing wheat in his own
backyard as a means to feed his family and his own
livestock had somehow violated the Interstate Commerce
Clause of the U.S. Constitution because the quantity of
wheat that he grew could have actually been sold.
Moreover, in their unanimous decision, this liberal
activist Court affirmed:
If we assume it is never marketed, homegrown wheat
competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of
commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as
definitive and quite as definitely as prohibitions or
restrictions thereon.
Mr. Speaker, what a circuitous and false logic.
The stage was then set of course by this activist Court
for massive expansion of Federal power. Year after
merciless year a liberal Supreme Court, drunk with self-
imposed power, delivered an unprecedented assault upon the
rights of the States and of the people.
During his years on the court, especially his early
years, Mr. Speaker, Justice Rehnquist was often called the
lone dissenter to outrageous decisions, even once
receiving a Lone Ranger doll awarded by his friends. But
yet his adherence to the Constitution, faithfully
expressed in some of his earliest dissents, had great
influence upon the Court as evidenced in later majority
opinions where he was vindicated in his previous
conclusions.
In 1973, when the Supreme Court illegitimately bestowed
its imprimatur on abortion on demand, it was Justice
William Rehnquist who wrote a scathing dissent to that
majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. He said:
To reach its results, the Court necessarily has had to
find within the scope of the 14th amendment a right that
was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the
amendment.
How very eloquent.
Chief Justice Rehnquist was also instrumental in
fighting back assaults on religious freedom in his efforts
to make clear that the Constitution ensures government
neutrality in matters of religious conscience, but not the
requirement to move religion altogether from the public
square. He understood the Constitution.
In the 1995 case of United States v. Lopez, the
Rehnquist court marked the first time in over 50 years,
Mr. Speaker, that the Supreme Court upheld the rights of
States, ruling against the expansion of Federal power and
finding a Federal law in violation of that now woefully
distorted commerce clause of the Constitution.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist was often found standing
in the breach of defense of the Constitution, endowing
this Nation through the years with a noble legacy of
resistance to a liberal, activist Court determined to make
its own law and enact its own agenda.
Mr. Speaker, he gave the American people his last full
measure of devotion and stayed at his post through great
personal pain and sacrifice while he was fighting cancer.
To the very end, he led a brave and good-natured effort to
restore the Supreme Court to its ethical grounding.
Mr. Speaker, as we bid loving farewell to this stoic
champion, I reflect upon the words of Alfred Lord Tennyson
in tribute:
Though much is taken, much abides; and though we are not
now that strength in which the old days moved Earth and
Heaven; that which we are, we are, one equal-temper of
heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in
will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Mr. Speaker, when the final battle with illness and
physical weakness came to Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist, he resolutely remained at his post for his
President, for his country, and for the future of all
mankind. He did not yield.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that
very well-presented picture of this great man whom we are
talking about here tonight.
The gentleman is right. There was a time when William
Rehnquist stood alone for the rule of law and a strict
interpretation of the U.S. Constitution in a world where
lots of people that were of the other persuasion actually
made jokes about him.
To us who are conservatives and respected his
intelligence, his wit, his humor, and his bulldoggedness,
he was someone whom we respected and we loved because when
he got ready to do his job, he did it.
One of the things you can look at is, when your
colleagues who disagree with you have comments that are
positive about you, I think that speaks a lot about not
only his ability to stand his ground but his ability to
stand it with grace as a man who demanded and received
respect because of his behavior and because of the way he
handled himself.
Now, Chief Justice William Brennan is well known for the
way he uses certain language. I am going to read a quote
from Justice Brennan, and some of it is a little rough,
but I think we will enjoy it. He is talking about Justice
Rehnquist.
He is just a breath of fresh air. He is so damn
personable. He lays his position out, casts his vote. You
know exactly where he stands on every goddamn case. And
he's meticulously fair in assigning opinions. I can't
begin to tell you how much better all of us feel and how
fond all of us are of him personally.
Another of his colleagues, Justice Lewis Powell said:
In many ways he is the best-educated person I have ever
worked with, very familiar with the classics. He'll quote
them with confidence. Everybody agrees generally, I
suppose, that he's brilliant, but he has a good sense of
humor and he is very generous and he is principled.
Former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall said,
``Rehnquist is a great Chief Justice.''
All these people were people on the other side of most
of the issues with William Rehnquist, and yet they speak
of him as a colleague that they highly respect, and they
believe he handled himself very well.
As we are talking about colleagues that we respect, I
see that we are joined today by the gentleman from east
Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and also one of my judicial
colleagues, coming to this august body from the judiciary
of Texas, which is getting to be a habit for quite a few
of our Congressmen, and we are glad to have him. I wonder
if the gentleman would like to step up and make a
statement about the Chief Justice and join in a colloquy
about the Chief Justice.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honor
to be here to talk about the great Chief Justice William
Rehnquist.
The gentleman knows, those of us that really believed in
strict constructionism, that the Founders and writers of
the Constitution meant what they said, and we know this to
be a great man, a brilliant man. We do mourn in the
passing of the Chief Justice, 19 years, as the gentleman
pointed out, as the Chief Justice, nearly 34 years as a
Justice. That is incredible that he maintained his
humility, his sense of purpose, his servanthood-type
mentality.
I just want to highlight some things. Under his
leadership the 10th and 11th amendments began to have more
meaning, as they were intended. For so long they had just
been forgotten. The 10th amendment is not an enumerated
power, basically it is reserved to the people in the
States.
This is a man who had an intellect unsurpassed by
anybody on the Court, past or present, and yet sometimes
the intellect seems to get in the way and you cannot see
the forest for the trees. He saw the words in simplistic
brilliance. He knew they meant what they said and he said
so.
In Alden v. Maine, Seminole Tribe v. Florida, U.S. v.
Printz, U.S. v. Lopez, that was one the Chief penned
himself, those were cases where he pointed these things
out.
In the Lopez case--it is a great case, one of my
favorites--it had the powerful language that reins in the
commerce clause power that Congress has. And he explained
that commerce clause means what it says. You cannot just
keep reaching out and say a school is part of interstate
commerce. That is not the intention and everybody knows
it. And he helped rein in the Court to where it should be.
Now, the Chief Justice wrote the 2005 opinion Van Orden
v. Perry that allowed the State of Texas to continue to
display a monument containing, among other things, the Ten
Commandments. As I sat there and listened to the oral
argument before the Supreme Court, and I am a member of
the Supreme Court bar, and it was an honor and privilege
to be sitting there, you look up and you see Moses holding
the Ten Commandment tablets and, here they are trying to
decide if it is OK for the State of Texas to have a
monument to the Ten Commandments.
He understood the hypocrisy. He understood how silly it
was for people to try to be so intellectual, as a lady
back in Mount Pleasant where I grew up used to say, ``Some
people have a Ph.D. but the truth is they are still P-H-U-
Ls. They are fools.'' But the Chief Justice had that kind
of delightful sense of humor as well.
In the establishment clause he framed the issue very
well when he said:
This case, like all establishment clause challenges,
presents us with the difficulty of respecting both faces.
Our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. Yet these
institutions must not press religious observances upon
their citizens. One face looks to the past in
acknowledgment of our Nation's heritage, while the other
looks to the present in demanding a separation between
church and state. Reconciling these two faces requires
that we neither abdicate our responsibility to maintain a
division between church and state nor evince a hostility
to religion by disabling the government from, in some
ways, recognizing our religious heritage.
At times, like the World War II monument where they just
did not include the part where Roosevelt said, ``So help
us God,'' like that was going to offend somebody, it
reminds me, I had a summer in the Soviet Union back in
college. Stalin wrote Trotsky completely out of the
history books. That is what Chief Justice Rehnquist was
saying. You cannot just rewrite history to suit yourself.
A Supreme Being, the acknowledgment of God, has been part
of our history, and it should not be ignored.
The Chief quoted a case previously decided by the Court
in 1952 because he also believed in precedent, like we do,
like we did as judges; that is what we are supposed to do.
That has been placed far back as a rule for Justices to
follow. He understood that just because something, a
monument, a speech or a display, contains religious
symbols or words, it does not mean that it violates the
establishment clause.
On the sensitive issue of abortion, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Franks) pointed this out, he was steadfast.
He said the States have that right. They have the right.
So he dissented in Roe v. Wade; and again, he dissented in
Parenthood v. Casey. It was clear to the Chief, he
believed, that States had a right to place restrictions
unless they were prevented from doing so by clear language
of the Constitution, and that simply was not there.
This same usurpation that Members of Congress just talk
about daily, this was a man who lived it. He did not
believe in usurpation of the State and local governments'
rights.
As I reflect on the Court and awe and reference from
such a humble man of peace, man of life, I could not help
but think about the words in the Declaration of
Independence. We are created equal by our Creator, but it
is pretty clear a lot of us did not get an equal amount of
common sense.
Everybody on the Supreme Court is brilliant, some of the
brightest minds in this country; and yet the common sense
was not equally passed around those nine Justices. So
things that made complete sense, common sense, were so
simple that it apparently flew right by some of the
pseudo-intellectuals. Here was a man who made the
complicated simple, as it should have been. He is a man
this country owes a great debt of gratitude to. He is a
man whom I will always have great respect for. He is a man
who should and could be a role model for all Americans. He
loved liberty more than self.
He was a servant, and I thank God for Chief Justice
William Rehnquist. I thank God for the life he lived. I
thank God for the life he tried to make sure that others
would have as well, and our thoughts and prayers will
continue to be with his loved ones.
I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) for giving
me an opportunity to share in this tribute. It does weigh
heavy. It is important that we pay tribute to such a great
man.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I was thinking back. The
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and I both served in
the Texas judiciary, and I do not know if you were there
at the time or not and if you remember. At one point in my
22 years on the bench we had a State judicial conference.
Our guest speaker was a very personable and intelligent
professor of law from the University of Virginia. He
actually was smart enough to carry two full days of
education for judges by himself, and you have got to be
pretty good to do that.
In one of these sessions, he was analyzing the
President's Supreme Court, and this was prior to Chief
Justice Rehnquist becoming Chief Justice, when he was
Justice Rehnquist, and he was talking about the makeup of
the U.S. Supreme Court at that point in time.
He started by tracking the liberals on the Court, which
at that time was the vast majority; and he talked about
their capabilities and what direction they wanted to take
things. Finally he got down and said those of you who are
feeling very depressed because you do not have a liberal
bend toward the law, do not lose heart because you have a
champion, and he is equal to the task of all those we have
just discussed put together in his ability to analyze and
take forward his view of the U.S. Constitution.
He said never sell short William Rehnquist. He knows
what he is doing; he knows where he wants to take the law;
and he will take it there. And believe me, as long as it
is a Republican in office, he should and will be the next
Chief Justice of the United States, and at that time he
will turn the corner on many of the decisions which we
have found to be very strange and not very well directed
toward the trial courts and the trial courts' abilities.
So do not lose heart. You have a champion and he is a
white knight and he will deliver for the conservative
view, the rule-of-law view of the Constitution.
He certainly did. Even though he wrote dissents,
sometimes those dissents were so telling that they moved
the Court slowly. Absolutely a phenomenal intelligence and
ability to wordsmith, to word things so that they led us
in a direction we needed to go.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I
think about one of the last cases the Court decided under
his Chief Justice administration, the Kelo case. He was in
the dissent, and it brings to mind the quote, ``The price
of liberty is eternal vigilance.'' He did a great deal. He
was able to help turn the Court back toward having the
Constitution mean what it said.
Yet, here again, the Kelo case, he dissented. He was, as
you say, very clear, very precise. He had Justices Scalia,
Thomas, and O'Connor with him in dissenting. They all four
dissented, and yet a majority of the Court turned around,
said you know what, we are going back to the day of
fiefdoms and kings and dukes. So whoever is better friends
with the ones in power, well, they can just flat take land
away from those that have, if they are going to promise to
provide more bounty to the ones in power. Phenomenal
decision, just an embarrassment. It should be for everyone
who sits on the bench anywhere.
Yet, to the very end, he maintained his integrity, he
maintained his principle, he maintained the clarity of
mind to understand that not only is that not right, not
only is that not fair, not only is that un-American, it
violates the Constitution.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, if I can reclaim my time, I
noticed that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), our
friend, has arrived in the Chamber. I would really like to
hear what he has to say about Chief Justice Rehnquist. So
I yield to our colleague and good friend from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. It
is an honor for me to stand on the floor here with two of
the three judges that we have from Texas to help guide us
down this constitutional path and my good friend, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), who is a pure
constitutionalist and whom I have the honor to serve with
on the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
I have a lot of things to say about Chief Justice
Rehnquist, and it is an honor for me to have an
opportunity to say a few words here, but I would like to
first start by recapping some of his life. That is a life
just so well-lived and so impressive to see what he has
done and how he put it together piece by piece, almost
without flaw.
Looking back through that life, we know that we have
lost a great public servant just last Saturday, and it
happened in the middle of the disaster down in the gulf
coast. So some of the media was swamped by those current
events. We need to raise this up and commemorate this
man's life in a special way.
He was just a month short of his 81st birthday. He
battled cancer that eventually took his life, but he
battled it with the same determination that he battled for
principles that we all here hold so dear.
The Chief Justice awed the Nation by never giving up,
and he never retired. He continued his service to our
Nation until the very end. He was consistent with his
lifetime of service, and he also was consistent with the
vision of the Founding Fathers in that these Justices
would be appointed for life. They were expected to serve
for life or until retirement. He served a full lifetime
for this country and he was consistent and true to his
principles all the way through. He was a noble and
honorable American who was part of the greatest
generation. Examining his lifetime and career gives us
insight into this powerful figure.
He devoted the majority of his life to serving this
country in numerous capacities, and I take you back to
1943 to 1946 where he served in the U.S. Army Air Corps,
and there is no question he had an incredibly deep
intelligence.
He attended top schools, earning numerous advanced
degrees, and was consistently at the top of his class, and
unquestionably served as a model for his fellow students.
He received a B.A. and an M.A. in political science from
Stanford and another master's in government from Harvard.
He graduated first in his class from Stanford in 1952,
just two places ahead of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. He
served as a law clerk for Justice Robert Jackson on the
Supreme Court of the United States in the 1951 and 1952
terms and practiced law in Phoenix, AZ, from 1953 until
1969.
He served as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of
Legal Counsel from 1969 until 1971. As Assistant Attorney
General for the Justice Department's Office of Legal
Counsel, it was one of his primary functions to screen
potential Supreme Court candidates.
When Justice John Marshall Harlan retired, a search went
out for a replacement, and Attorney General John Mitchell,
who many of us remember was Rehnquist's boss at the time,
announced he had found someone suitable for the job. That
person was William Rehnquist whom Nixon appointed to the
Court. So at the tender age of 47, which at that time was
a young age for those appointments, and at this time as
well, he was confirmed as Associate Justice on December
10, 1971, by a vote of 68 to 26. I can only imagine there
are 26 votes out there that would like to have the
opportunity to reconsider that vote.
His first day on the job was January 7, 1972. He served
on the Nation's highest court throughout seven
Presidencies. In 1986, Chief Justice Warren Burger
retired, and President Reagan nominated Justice Rehnquist
through to the reins of the Court as Chief Justice. There
was a confirmation debate and deliberation that ensued. He
was confirmed as Chief Justice on September 17, 1986, by a
vote of 65 to 33, another 33 that I believe would like to
have a chance to reconsider that vote in light of the
historical 33 years of service of Chief Justice Rehnquist.
We have gotten to know a little bit more about him in
the last few days. His management style, his effort to be
fair, to be a giving and forgiving boss, but one that was
also a task master. As a result he was able to form a
cohesive Supreme Court body. Even though they had a lot of
different personalities and a lot of different kinds of
common sense they brought to their jurisprudence, Chief
Justice Rehnquist pulled them together. He left quite a
legacy.
In elementary school, he was asked about his career
plans by his teacher, and what I think is one of the best
prophesies I have heard of a career in some time, he
replied, ``I'm going to change the government.'' Now when
some people say, I am going to change the government, they
mean they are going to grow government or they are going
to adapt government in light of modern contemporary
values.
Chief Justice Rehnquist did change the government. He
fought a rear guard action to preserve our Constitution,
the text of the Constitution. He was a constitutionalist.
He was a model of judicial restraint. He stayed true to
the principle and the paramount principle which is strict
construction. No matter what path the other members of the
Court took, at the beginning of his career on the Supreme
Court, Justice Rehnquist was often a dissenter on a Court
filled with judicial activists. He held firm to the
guidance that the Constitution itself provides and was
eventually joined by allies who helped him hold on to some
of the meaning of our Constitution's text.
He led the Court in preserving States rights, which was
referenced here, and I appreciate that discussion; but it
started with U.S. v. Lopez, which struck down a Federal
law banning guns near local schools. Now I approve of the
policy, but I more approve of his constitutional decision
in dissenting from the Congress' policy. In U.S. v.
Morrison, which struck down substantial parts of the
Violence Against Women Act, again something, a policy,
that I approved of, but a constitutional decision that I
agreed with, and I appreciate that restraint.
He was not yet there on the Court when Griswold v.
Connecticut in 1965 established a right to privacy. I wish
he had been there on that day because that was the day
that the Court turned into an extreme activist Court,
established this right to privacy that had never been
found in the Constitution before. It was discovered in the
emanations and penumbras of the Constitution, meaning that
we laypersons could not divine that. In fact, maybe some
of the judges here could not have found that right in the
Constitution either.
He was a staunch defender of the right to life. He
authored Rust v. Sullivan, where the government can
withhold funds from clinics that advocate abortion. He
strongly dissented in Roe v. Wade; Planned Parenthood v.
Casey, which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade; and in Stenberg v.
Carrhart, which was the constitutional decision that found
a right to partial birth abortion. Chief Justice Rehnquist
held the line against that. He needed more help on the
Court. Almost every day he was there he needed more help
on the Court. He firmly rejected the extra constitutional
right to privacy that his colleagues created.
Chief Justice Rehnquist also did something many shy away
from today. He recognized that the free exercise clause of
the first amendment is just as important as the
establishment clause.
He authored the 2002 case that upheld school vouchers in
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, and strongly dissented in the
2000 case that held that public schools could not allow
organized prayer at sporting events, even if the speaker
is a student, and that was Santa Fe Independent School
District v. Doe.
He joined the majority in Agostini v. Felton in 1987,
which allowed public school teachers to provide remedial
education in parochial schools.
Rehnquist dissented from the Court's 1985 decision that
moments of silence in public schools are unconstitutional.
That was Wallace v. Jaffree.
And in 2003, he strongly dissented in the Court's
affirmative action cases, Strutter and Gratz, which we
remember.
And I sat in on those cases and I remember watching him
sitting on the bench as he deliberated on those
presentations and oral arguments. He condemned the racial
preference policies as a sham and a naked effort to
achieve racial balancing. His position in 2003 matched
that of the majority he joined in the 1978 Bakke case,
which held that Federal law does not permit a university's
consideration of race in admissions.
He was consistent from 1978 until 2003. He was
consistent until the last day of his life. Chief Justice
Rehnquist opposed the reading of ``public use'' as being
substituted for ``public benefit'' in this summer's Kelo
eminent domain decision, which we have had much discussion
about here on the floor of this Congress. And I think all
of us have engaged in that. He argued the fifth amendment
means what it says.
And I would support the statement that those 12 words in
the fifth amendment of the Constitution, ``nor shall
private property be taken for a public use without just
compensation,'' are some of the clearest and cleanest
words that we have in the entire Constitution, yet the
majority of the Court, with Chief Justice Rehnquist and
Justice O'Connor dissenting, held otherwise. I do not
believe that the fifth amendment could be written more
precisely, more concisely, and I would challenge the
attorneys that we have across this country to write that
better than it has been written.
Both the personal and case histories I have discussed
here show that Chief Justice Rehnquist, whose passing we
mourn, whose legacy we celebrate tonight, was a man of
great principle and honor. I firmly believe that without
Chief Justice Rehnquist's presence on the Court for the
last 33 years, our Constitution would be unrecognizable.
It is to him that we owe our deepest thanks for preserving
our Constitution for future Americans to fully restore to
its original text.
I would say that there was a time in my life when I had
the privilege and honor to sit in the presence of this
great man. I am not going to pose the question here into
this Record tonight, but I posed a question to Chief
Justice Rehnquist that caused him to deliberate for quite
some time, and he finally answered, ``I am going to elect
not to answer that question.'' Now, I do not believe he
elected not to answer the question because he did not know
the answer. I believed he elected not to answer the
question because of how the answer would reflect on the
other members of the Court.
He had an ability to do a calculation on a question or a
problem and boil it down to the root quicker than anyone
whom I have watched process these heavy legal questions.
He was a giant of a man. He lived a life that was well
lived, and we are here to celebrate tonight and give great
honor to a man who hung on to this Constitution as dearly
and as strongly as anyone has been charged with when they
take the oath to uphold this Constitution.
It has been an honor to be a citizen of this country for
the 33 years that he has served us so well. It has been an
honor to have worked with him, to have been in his
presence, and to deliberate with him on those occasions,
and an honor to be in the courtroom to hear the oral
arguments and an honor to read the opinions that he has
given us. He has left us a legacy.
He has also left us a duty and a responsibility to pick
up this ball now, and where he has held onto this
Constitution, it is our job to carry forward and
reestablish the text of this Constitution that he held so
dear, and that we all hold so dear.
Our prayers go out to the family. Our prayers of
gratitude for the lifetime, the legacy of Chief Justice
William Rehnquist will continue into the future.
As I say, it has been an honor to be serving in this
government with a man like that, and I hope and pray that
we will be able to carry on the legacy that he left for
us.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his
comments, and I was thinking as he was speaking, and he
gave an excellent presentation of the Chief Justice, but
we are joined here in the Chamber today by two men who
basically made their entire life a part of dealing in the
justice system both as members of the bar, members of the
bench, and who also built, basically from scratch, from
what I know of both of them, very successful businesses,
overcoming insurmountable obstacles. And then, when they
had the ability to continue to go out and make those
businesses thrive, they volunteered to come to Washington
and become a part of the justice system, a part of the
legislative branch of our government. This defines the
kind of man that Chief Justice Rehnquist personally
reached out to, kind of everybody.
He wrote the opinions of those of us who honor our
heritage, who honor the language that our forefathers
wrote into the Constitution and think that if that is what
it says, that is what it says. It does not take a genius
to read the paper and say that is what it says. And with
all his skill and writing ability, really you can cut it
down to the fact that that is the way he looked at it. He
said, Wait a minute, let us read the Constitution. That is
what it says. It speaks volumes that Chief Justice
Rehnquist was able to do that in such a talented manner
and in such a manner that challenged legal scholars across
the country.
One of his opponents from Harvard University made a
comment about him, something to the effect that no matter
what you thought of him, whether you agreed with his
ideology, he said, I have to give Rehnquist an A. That is
the kind of talent he had. He could take the causes that
those of us working in the trenches, the trial judges, and
we liked to say there is a difference between trial judges
and appellate judges. We shoot from the hip and make those
decisions and then they get to grade our papers. Of
course, Judge Gohmert has been both, so he has experience
in both those areas, but I am just an old trial judge.
Mr. GOHMERT. If the gentleman will yield, I might just
say that it is easier to grade papers after people have
shot from the hip.
Mr. CARTER. Well, at least you know they are shooting
from the hip.
Mr. GOHMERT. But we all loved, I think, his simplicity.
Even toward the end of this great man's life, I remember
seeing on television the reporters all after him, asking
are you going to resign or are you going to retire? And he
came back, this man of brilliance yet simplicity, and
said, ``It is for me to know and for you to find out.''
That is the kind of man he was even to the end, cute,
humble, and a lot of fun.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, if the judges would
yield, there is another anecdote that is worth mentioning,
and I do not know if it has been passed along here
tonight, but I think it demonstrates his sense of humor.
And sometimes it was self-deprecating and sometimes it was
succinct.
Several years after he had been appointed to the bench,
he was asked what it is like to serve here on the Supreme
Court. He said, ``Well, you spend the first 2 years here
wondering how you got here, and the rest of your time
wondering how they got here.''
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
sharing that, and I now yield to my colleague, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I think my primary
reason for being here tonight was just to not let this
man's towering contribution to the judicial process slip
away into history. There is an old quote by Dostoyevski.
He said, ``He who controls the present, controls the past.
And he who controls the past, controls the future.''
Of course, as somebody was saying, there are a lot of
revisionists out there trying to rewrite history in order
to affect the future, but this man's history is very
important to our country. I will make a prediction tonight
that a lot of the decisions, where he found himself in
dissent, in the next 20 or 30 years will turn in the other
direction, and we will see that this man was before his
time.
There is a saying that if you fail without succeeding,
if you struggle without succeeding, it is so someone else
might succeed after you. And if you succeed without
struggling, which I think some of our modern-day Justices
are going to do, it is because someone has struggled and
succeeded before you. This man, I believe, is going to be
vindicated in society, because he did not find a lot of
these hidden things that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King) talked about.
We have seen judges say that somehow the words in the
Pledge of Allegiance, ``under God,'' might be
unconstitutional; or that it is unconstitutional to
protect a 9-year-old girl from Internet pornography, or it
is unconstitutional to protect an unborn child from
partial-birth abortion. With regard to all of these insane
notions, he did not see them.
One woman said, Maybe these judges who find all these
things ought to be out looking for Osama bin Laden if they
are that good at finding things that are not there.
This judge saw the Constitution for what it was. He did
not try to make a new revolution. He simply tried to
affirm the one we already had. I think that tonight we
celebrate the life of a man who many Justices of the
future will stand on his shoulders and look back and say,
you know, Chief Justice Rehnquist was right, Chief Justice
Rehnquist was correct.
The ship of state turns slowly sometimes, but this man
had his hand on the rudder long before the rest of us even
knew. And I again just wanted to join with all of my
colleagues and honor this man's life.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his
comments, and let me say this. As we discuss Chief Justice
Rehnquist and what he has accomplished and the legacy he
brings to the United States of America, we are doing this
on the very eve of the beginning of the new selection of a
Chief Justice of the United States. It is, I think,
appropriate to realize that as Chief Justice Rehnquist was
serving 33 years on the highest court in this land, he
also was writing history books to record history.
He knew just what my colleague said, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Franks), that it is important that we
remember the history as it was, not revise it to make it
what we want it to be. So he wrote three history books
about the Court so we could say, Well, what does history
tell us about that event at that time? And so the Chief
Justice, the great researcher, has given us the research
and a direction on the history as it pertains to the
Court, something the other Justices of the Court that will
follow can turn to as additional information to get a
picture of where the Court was coming from as it made
rulings.
It is very important, and I hope our colleagues in the
Senate, as they look at the confirmation of Judge Roberts,
are looking at the history of the U.S. Supreme Court and
the legacy of William Rehnquist.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, there is a point that
comes to mind, and I can get it quickly made. This right
to privacy that was in the emanation's penumbras, in the
shadows, was something that was never recognized by Chief
Justice Rehnquist. That right to privacy will be presented
to Judge Roberts, and he will be asked. In fact, he will
be demanded to recognize that right to privacy as a
condition of his confirmation over in the Senate, a very
right to privacy that Chief Justice Rehnquist never
recognized.
That is how they are going to try to amend the
Constitution and the confirmation process over in the
Senate. I think it is important to recognize that the
legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist should be preserved in
the confirmation process in the Senate as well.
Mr. CARTER. I wonder how you can be unqualified to serve
by not recognizing that right, when there are members
sitting on the Court at this time who do not recognize
that right.
The point of a Supreme Court is that there are multiple
points of view, and you should not be requiring only one
point of view on the U.S. Supreme Court. To make a
confirmation hearing dependent upon one point of view
absolutely flies in the face of justice in America.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing from my
colleague from Iowa regarding his saying in elementary
school that he wanted to change the government. I think
about the example of the emperor who had no clothes, yet
all the crowd got swept up in seeing clothes that were not
there and saying, Oh, are the clothes not beautiful? They
were not there. Chief Justice Rehnquist was one of those
if he had to stand alone and say they are not there, there
are no clothes, he did it.
Just in conclusion, I think about the end of Frost's
poem: Two roads diverged in the woods for Chief Justice
Rehnquist many years ago, and he took the one less
traveled by, and that has made all the difference. It has,
in fact, changed a Nation for the good.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman. One of the downfalls of appearing in the
Congress with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) and the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King) is these guys are great in quoting
all these things off the top of their head, and that is
hard for an old trial judge who is just used to shooting
from the hip. I do enjoy the wonderful quotes these guys
pull out and quote them right. It is a blessing to have
them as Members of our Congress.
Mr. Speaker, you have been very patient today as we
honor our passing Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as
we laid him to rest today. We thank you for your patience
in allowing us to express our opinions about him.
Thursday, September 8, 2005
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, as we honor Chief Justice
William Rehnquist's life, we pause to reflect on his
service to our country, a record of service that was
colored with honor, dignity, and distinction.
Many commentators are focused on his success ushering in
a quiet, conservative revolution on the Court. Another
remarkable facet of Rehnquist's legacy, however, is found
in a much more understated role of the Chief Justice, that
of the judiciary's chief advocate and ambassador. The
hallmark of his style, no matter how volatile the issue or
context, from abortion to impeachment, was one of
respectful debate, a quality that garnered an enormous
degree of loyalty and respect among his fellow Justices,
litigants, and Court watchers.
But the Chief Justice not only worked to foster respect
and collegiality within the walls of the Court; he did
more. For the last 2 years of his tenure, Rehnquist turned
his focus to a matter that has also been a source of
growing concern for many, the deterioration in relations
between the Congress and the courts. As the Chief Justice
reported in his year-end analysis of the state of the
judiciary, and again in his customarily understated way,
``During the last year, it seems that the traditional
interchange between the Congress and the Judiciary broke
down.''
This hostility long preceded congressional intervention
in the tragic case of Terri Schiavo and has taken many
forms beyond the most simple and pernicious, that of
defunding the courts. It includes measures stripping the
courts of jurisdiction to hear particular cases,
condemning the courts for the citation of certain
precedent, and splitting circuits out of a dislike for
their jurisprudence.
One constitutional amendment would even change the
Framers' design-of-life tenure for lower Federal courts
and subject judges to costly campaigns and retention
elections. If Members think political campaigning by
elected officials and the growth of 527 organizations and
other independent expenditure efforts are already out of
control, just imagine adding negative attack ads in
judicial races around the country: ``Call Judge Jones and
tell him to stop coddling criminals'' or ``Call Judge
Smith and ask him why he denied relief to widows and
orphans.'' One can just imagine what the judicial ads
might look like.
Even though many of these legislative initiatives have
yet to pass, we are already witnessing the direct
consequences to our court system. In recent years there
has been a marked decline in the level of interest and
service on the bench among highly qualified attorneys.
Judges are leaving the bench to return to private
practice. Reckless talk in the House Committee on the
Judiciary about the potential impeachment of judges not
for unethical conduct but out of a disagreement with their
decisions has only added to the chilling effect on the
courts and people's willingness to serve.
Ultimately, this protracted war against the judicial
branch will only denigrate both Congress and the courts.
This is not the first time relations between the two
branches have been at a dangerously low ebb, nor was
Rehnquist the first Chief Justice to express alarm. Former
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes admonished the Congress
of his day that ``in the great enterprise of making
democracy workable, we are all partners. One member of our
body politic cannot say to another `I have no need of
thee.' ''
Increasingly, however, the Congress has been saying just
that, and Rehnquist was among the first to spot the
danger. When the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert)
and I formed a bipartisan caucus to improve relations with
the courts, Chief Justice Rehnquist was the first to sit
down with us. We invited him to meet with our caucus. He
came to the Hill, sat down with us, and it was a very
important meeting and interchange. After presiding over
the High Court for the last two decades, he was clearly
disturbed at the turn of events in relations between the
branches and the resulting attack upon the independence of
the judiciary.
Why does it matter if the Congress and the courts are at
war? Because if the separation of powers has eroded and an
independent judiciary is impaired, decisions become
increasingly politicized. Public confidence in the rule of
law erodes and people begin taking law into their own
hands: 174 years ago, Supreme Court Chief Justice John
Marshall warned, ``The greatest scourge an angry Heaven
ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and sinning people was
an ignorant, a corrupt, or a dependent judiciary.''
During the confirmation hearings of John Roberts next
week, there will be a great many important questions asked
about Roberts' judicial philosophy, his views on
individual rights and freedoms. But I hope that at least
one Senator will ask whether Roberts, a prodigy of and
potential successor to Rehnquist, will aspire to succeed
not only his mentor's conservative revolution but his all
too solitary work to repair the damage to the historic and
vital comity between the Congress and the courts.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Franks) for yielding to me. It is an
honor for me to join him here on the floor again tonight.
The last time, as I recall, the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Franks), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), and
also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and I were
here together was to celebrate the life of Chief Justice
William Rehnquist. That was a somber moment, a moment of
reverence and respect and reminiscing; but also, we came
away from that evening and we came away from that week
with a sense of the legacy that was left by the years on
the bench by Chief Justice Rehnquist. . . .
?
A Service of Celebration
And Commitment to God
Of the life of
William Hubbs Rehnquist
Chief Justice of the United States
1924-2005
St. Matthew's Cathedral
1725 Rhode Island Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, September 7th
2:00 p.m.
The Reverend George W. Evans, Jr., D.D.
The Reverend Jeffrey M. Wilson
Lutheran Church of the Redeemer, McLean, VA
The Reverend Jan P. Lookingbill
Emmanuel Lutheran Church, Bethesda, MD
Theodore Cardinal McCarrick
Archbishop of Washington
The Service
I. Prelude
.................... Selections from ``Water Music''--Handel
.................... ``Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee''--Beethoven
.................... ``Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring''--Bach
.................... ``How Lovely Is Thy Dwelling Place''--Brahms
II. The Procession (Please stand)
.................... ``God of Our Fathers''
.................... (At the end of the procession, please be seated)
.................... Solo: ``Amazing Grace'' Denny Clark, tenor
III. The Call To Worship:
.................... Welcome Remarks: Theodore Cardinal McCarrick
.................... (Please stand)
.................... Pastor Wilson: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the source of all Mercy and
the God of all consolation. He comforts us in all our sorrows so that we can comfort others in
their sorrows with the consolation we ourselves have received from God.
.................... Congregation: Thanks be to God.
.................... Hymn: ``A Mighty Fortress Is Our God'' Congregation
.................... EIN' FESTE BURG. 8 7, 87, 6 6, 6 6, 7.
.................... Broadly, with vigor
.................... 1. A mighty fortress is our God, A bulwark never failing;
.................... Our helper he amid the flood Of mortal ills prevailing:
.................... For still our ancient foe Doth seek to work us woe;
.................... His craft and power are great, And, armed with cruel hate,
.................... On earth is not his equal.
.................... 2. Did we in our own strength confide
Our striving would be losing;
.................... Were not the right Man on our side, The Man of God's own choosing.
.................... Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is he;
.................... Lord Sabaoth his Name, From age to age the same,
.................... And he must win the battle.
.................... 3. And though this world, with devils filled, Should threaten to undo us;
.................... We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
.................... The prince of darkness grim, We tremble not for him;
.................... His rage we can endure, For lo! his doom is sure,
.................... One little word shall fell him.
.................... 4. That word above all earthly powers, No thanks to them, abideth;
.................... The Spirit and the gifts are ours Through him who with us sideth:
.................... Let goods and kindred go, This mortal life also;
.................... The body they may kill: God's truth abideth still,
.................... His kingdom is forever.
.................... Martin Luther, 1483-1546
................... Tr. Frederick H. Hedge, 1805-1890
................... Based on Psalm 46
................. Pastor: When we were baptized in Christ Jesus, we were baptized into his death. We were buried
therefore with him by Baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised
from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live a new
life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we
shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
IV. The Liturgy of the Word:
.................... The Kyrie:
................... Cantor: In peace let us pray to the Lord.
................... Congregation: Lord, have mercy.
.................... Cantor: For the peace from above and for our
salvation, let us pray to the Lord.
.................. Congregation: Lord have mercy.
.................... Cantor: For the peace of the whole world, for the well-being of the Church of God, and for the unity of all, let us pray to the
Lord.
................... Congregation: Lord have mercy.
.................... Cantor: For this holy house, and for all who
offer here their worship and praise, let us pray to
the Lord.
................... Congregation: Lord have mercy.
.................... Cantor: Help, save, comfort, and defend us, gracious Lord.
................... Congregation: Amen.
.................... The Gloria:
................... Cantor: Glory to God in the highest, and peace to
his people on earth.
.................. Congregation: Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God
and Father:
................. We worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for
your glory.
................. Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father,
................. Lord God, Lamb of God: You take away the sin of the world;
.................. Have mercy on us.
................ You are seated at the right hand of the Father; receive
our prayer.
................... For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord,
................... You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the
Holy Spirit,
.............. In the glory of God the Father. Amen.
.................. Pastor: The Lord be with you.
.................. Congregation: And also with you.
.................. Pastor: Let us pray.
V. The Readings: (Please be seated)
................... Psalms 61: 1-5
V. Samuel Laurin, III
.................. Isaiah 40: 25-31 Pastor Lookingbill
.................... ``Faith of Our Fathers'' Choir
................ Remembrance: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: We are here to
celebrate the life of a great Chief Justice, and to thank
God for blessing this country with his presence for 80
years. The last 33 of those 80 years were spent at the
U.S. Supreme Court--14 as an Associate Justice, 19 as
Chief Justice.
I met Bill Rehnquist when I was a freshman at Stanford
University in 1946. He was serving as a ``hasher'' at my
dormitory during the evening meal. He amazed all the young
women by carrying such heavy loads of dishes on his tray.
I guess that is how he learned to carry all those heavy
loads in all the years that followed.
He and I enrolled at Stanford Law School in 1950. He was
clearly the brightest student in our class--always
prepared and always willing to express his views when
asked. He had conservative views backed up by brilliant
analyses. Outside class we enjoyed bridge games, charades,
and occasional movies. Bill was always fun to be around
and he had a fine sense of humor. Little did either of us
expect to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court one day.
Our class was very excited when he was selected by
Justice Robert Jackson to be a law clerk at the Supreme
Court. At that time not many Stanford law graduates were
invited to clerk at the Court.
Bill married another undergraduate classmate of mine,
Nan Cornell. She also was very bright and engaging. After
finishing his law clerk's position, Bill and Nan settled
in Phoenix. They wanted a city that was both the political
and economic center of the State, and Phoenix suited them.
They became parents of Janet, Jim, and Nancy. When John
and I moved to Phoenix after John's military service, we
enjoyed seeing the Rehnquists on a regular basis. We had a
play reading group, and a bridge group. We went on family
desert outings.
Bill was a successful lawyer in a civil practice, and
was active in the Arizona Republican Party. When he was
offered the post of Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Legal Counsel in 1969, the Rehnquists moved to northern
Virginia and their children entered the public school
system. Two years later President Nixon appointed Bill
Rehnquist as an Associate Justice of the Court. I came to
Washington to attend the joint investiture of Justice
Lewis Powell and Justice William Rehnquist on January 7,
1972. It was a proud and poignant moment.
As a member of the Court, Justice Rehnquist found
himself frequently in dissent in the post-Earl Warren
years. In 1986 President Reagan wisely nominated Justice
Rehnquist for Chief Justice upon the retirement of Chief
Justice Warren Burger, and as Chief, Bill Rehnquist served
ably both as an administrator and as a member of the
Court. He had no pretenses at all and was always friendly
to Justices and staff alike. His sense of humor never left
him and he could break up a tense moment with a funny
story, quip, or poem. On the last day of our public
session, June 27, the Chief noted the seven separate
opinions issued in a contentious Ten Commandments case and
joked, ``I didn't know we had so many Justices.'' It drew
hearty laughter from the spectators. He never twisted arms
to get a vote on a case. He relied on the power of his
arguments and he was always fair.
Occasionally he surprised us. One day as we gathered in
our Conference Room to shake hands before going in the
Courtroom, he appeared with four gold stripes on the
sleeve of his robe. We thought it must be a joke. ``Where
did those come from?,'' we asked. ``Oh, I had the
seamstress sew on one stripe for every 5 years I have been
on the Court,'' he said. ``Just like the Lord Chief
Justice in Gilbert and Sullivan.'' And the stripes stayed.
He could have added more but never did.
Despite the workload, the Chief authored four fine books
and a number of articles. These works also deserved some
gold stripes. He was a first-rate historian and wrote with
an engaging style.
I grew up on a ranch. The really expert riders of horses
let the horse know immediately who is in control but then
they guide the horse with loose reins and very seldom use
the spurs. So it was with our Chief. He guided us with
loose reins and used the spurs only rarely to get us up to
speed with our work. Efficiency was very important to the
Chief.
His annual reports on the state of the judiciary were
masterful. His handling of the impeachment proceedings
against President Clinton was also expert. He presided
over all our Conferences with dispatch. He did not
encourage longwinded debates among us, but he gave each
Justice time to say what was needed. Because be was
concise he thought we should be also.
Thanks to him relations among the members of the Court
have been remarkably harmonious considering our different
viewpoints. He has enabled the Court to serve the role
envisioned for it by the Framers of the Constitution. He
lived his life fully--enjoying his family, his beloved
wife, Nan, his three fine children, and his grandchildren.
He was a faithful member of the Lutheran Church--no doubt
due to his Swedish ancestry. He was a beloved friend and
colleague, and a public servant in the finest tradition.
He was courageous at the end of his life, just as he was
throughout his life. And he never lost his sense of humor.
As he was being examined in the emergency room of a local
hospital in the final week of his life, the examining
physician asked who was his primary care doctor. ``My
dentist,'' he struggled to say, with a twinkle in his eye.
The Chief was a betting man. He enjoyed making wagers
about most things: The outcome of football or baseball
games, elections, even the amount of snow that would fall
in the courtyard at the Court. If you valued your money,
you would be careful about betting with the Chief. He
usually won. I think the Chief bet he could live out
another term despite his illness. He lost that bet, as did
all of us, but he won all the prizes for a life well
lived.
We love you, Chief.
Now, as the Chief would say, ``Counsel, the red light is
on. Your time is up.''
.................... Remembrance: President George W. Bush
President George W. Bush: Jim and Janet and Nancy; members
of the Rehnquist family; colleagues of the Chief Justice.
This afternoon the people of the United States mourn the
passing of the leader of a branch of the government, the
eight Justices of the Court pay final homage to their
Chief and friend, and a loving family bids farewell to a
kind and gentle soul.
William Hubbs Rehnquist accomplished many things in his
good life, and rose to high places. And we remember the
integrity and the sense of duty that he brought to every
task before him. That character was clear in the young man
of 18 who signed up for the Army Air Corps during the
Second World War. The Nation saw that character in his
more than three decades of service on our highest court.
And the Nation saw it again last January 20, when the
Chief Justice made his way onto the inaugural platform.
Many will never forget the sight of this man, weakened by
illness, rise to his full height and say in a strong
voice, ``Raise your right hand, Mr. President, and repeat
after me.''
It was more than a half-century ago that Bill Rehnquist
first came to the Supreme Court as a law clerk. As he
would later recount the story, he made that trip from
Milwaukee, in the middle of the winter in an old blue
Studebaker with no heater. He recalled that as he began
the journey, he patted that car and thought, don't let me
down, baby.
After a year-and-a-half in the Chambers of Justice
Robert Jackson, Bill Rehnquist left Washington, DC, and
headed for Phoenix with an even greater love for the law--
and with something more: a beautiful fiance named Natalie
Cornell. She would share his walk in life for nearly 40
years. All who knew the Chief know how he cherished Nan
and their time together, and how much he missed his wife
in the years without her.
In every chapter of his life, William Rehnquist stood
apart for his powerful intellect and clear convictions. In
a profession that values disciplined thought and
persuasive ability, a talent like his gets noticed in a
hurry. Still in his forties, he became the 100th Justice
of the Supreme Court, and one of the youngest in modern
times.
After he moved to the center chair, William Rehnquist
led the Court for nearly two decades, and earned a place
among our greatest Chief Justices. He built consensus
through openness and collegiality. He was a distinguished
scholar of the Constitution and a superb administrator of
the judicial conference. He understood the role of a judge
and the place of courts in our constitutional system. He
was prudent in exercising judicial power, and firm in
defending judicial independence.
On the bench and as a leader of the Federal courts,
Chief Justice Rehnquist was always a calm and steady
presence. In his thinking and in his bearing, he
personified the ideal of fairness, and people could sense
it. Inside the Court, no man could have been a finer
steward of the institution, its customs, and its history.
As long as William Rehnquist was presiding, colleagues
and advocates knew that the proceedings would be orderly,
on time, businesslike, and occasionally humorous. Once
during an oral argument, a lawyer criticized his
opponent's position by saying, ``I doubt very much it will
fool this Court.'' The Chief Justice replied, ``Don't
overestimate us.''
In his time on the Court, William Rehnquist served with
16 other Justices, and by all accounts, each one of his
colleagues regarded the man with respect and affection.
Justice William Brennan once said to a visitor, ``I cannot
begin to tell you . . . how fond all of us are of him
personally.''
Throughout this city of government, people saw William
Rehnquist in that same way. He carried himself with
dignity, but without pretense. Like Ronald Reagan, the
President who elevated him to Chief Justice, he was kindly
and decent, and there was not an ounce of self-importance
about him. It is a rare man who can hold a prominent
position in Washington, DC, for more than 30 years and
leave behind only good feelings and admiration. That's
what William Rehnquist did.
His law clerks knew him as a demanding boss who pressed
them, as one said, to ``read carefully, write clearly, and
think hard.'' But the clerks also became an extension of
the Chief's family, joining him for walks around the
Capitol, or for lunch or dinner, or games of tennis or
charades. His clerks remember those times with fondness.
And even more, they remember his vast store of knowledge
and his daily example of clear thinking and character. To
work beside William Rehnquist was to learn how a wise man
looks at the law and how a good man looks at life.
The Chief Justice was devoted to his public duties, but
not consumed by them. He was a renaissance man, a man who
adored his family, a man who always kept things in
balance. He read works of history and wrote a few fine
ones of his own. He knew how to paint, and he knew how to
win at bridge and poker. He had a passion for the
classics, for astronomy, and for college basketball. He
enjoyed music, and having stood next to him during the
national anthem, I can tell you the man loved to sing.
William Rehnquist often reminded young lawyers of the
ancient insight that time is the most valuable thing a man
can spend. He spoke with feeling about the need to choose
wisely, doing your job well, and never forgetting the
other important things that also take time: love for one
another, being a good parent to a child, service to your
community. He might have added the importance of being a
loving grandfather, because he was clearly that, too.
The 16th Chief Justice of the United States was given 80
years of life. He filled those years with purpose, a
gracious spirit, and faithful service to God and country
to the very end. He now goes to his rest beside his
beloved Nan. And William H. Rehnquist leaves behind the
gratitude of our whole Nation. We're proud of our Chief
Justice, and America honors his memory. May God bless him.
................... Hymn: ``America The Beautiful'' Congregation
................... (Please stand)
................. O beautiful for spacious skies, For amber waves of grain,
................ For purple mountain majesties Above the fruited plain!
................ America! America! God shed his grace on thee
................ And crown thy good with brotherhood From sea to shining sea.
............... O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife.
............... Who more than self their country loved And mercy more than life!
................. America! America! May God thy gold refine
............... Till all success be nobleness And every gain divine!
............... O beautiful for patriot dream That sees beyond the years
................. Thine alabaster cities gleam Undimmed by human tears!
................ America! America! God shed his grace on thee
............. And crown they good with brotherhood From sea to shining sea!
.................. (Please be seated)
................... Poetry Reading: Donald C. McLean
Rembrance: James Cornell Rehnquist
.................. Remembrance: Nancy Rehnquist Spears
.................... Remembrance: Natalie Ann Rehnquist Lynch
.................... The Gospel: Matthew 5: 1-16 Pastor Lookingbill
.................... (Please stand)
................... Hymn: ``Guide Me O Thou Great Jehovah'' Congregation
................... CWM RHONDDA. 8 7, 8 7, 8 7. John Hughes, 1873-1932
................... Broadly, in moderate time
................... 1. Guide me, O thou great Jehovah,
.................. Pilgrim through this barren land;
................... I am weak, but thou art mighty,
................... Hold me with thy powerful hand;
.................. Bread of heaven, Bread of heaven,
.................. Feed me till I want no more,
.................. Feed me till I want no more.
................. 2. Open now the crystal fountain
................... Whence the healing stream doth flow;
................ Let the fire and cloudy pillar
................. Lead me all my journey through;
................. Strong deliverer, Strong deliverer,
................. Be thou still my strength and shield,
................. Be thou still my strength and shield. Amen.
................... 3. When I tread the verge of Jordan,
................. Bid my anxious fears subside;
................. Death of death and hell's destruction,
................. Land me safe on Canaan's side;
................. Songs of praises
................. I will ever give to thee. Amen.
William Williams, 1717-1791
.................... Tr. from the Welsh by the author
.................... and Peter Williams, 1722-1796
................... Sermon: Pastor Evans
.................. Hallelujah (''Messiah'')--Handel Choir
.................... (Please stand)
VI. The Creed:
.................... Pastor: God has made us our Baptism into
Christ. Living together in trust and hope, we confess our faith.
................... Congregation: (Please stand)
.................... I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator
of heaven and earth.
.................... I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
.................... He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
.................... He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified,
died, and was buried.
.................... He descended into hell. On the third day He
rose again.
................... He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the
right hand of the Father.
.................... I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy
Catholic Church,
.................. The communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins,
.................... The resurrection of the body, and the life
everlasting. Amen.
VII. The Prayers:
.................... The Pastor shall lead the congregation in prayer.
The congregation is invited to sit or kneel as they feel comfortable.
................... The Lord's Prayer.
VIII. The Commendation: The Clergy.................... (Please be seated)
.................... Pastor: Into your hands, O merciful Savior,
we commend your servant William Hubbs Rehnquist.
Acknowledge, we humbly beseech you, a sheep of your own fold, a lamb
of your own flock, a sinner of your own redeeming. Receive him into
the arms of your mercy, into the blessed rest of everlasting peace, and into the glorious company of the saints in light.
................... Congregation: Amen.
................... Pastor: Let us go forth in peace.
................. Congregation: In the name of Christ. Amen.
IX. The Benediction: (Please rise)
.................... Hymn: ``For All the Saints'' Congregation
.................. 1. For all the saints who from their labors rest,
.................. all who by faith before the world confessed,
.................. your name, O Jesus, be forever blest.
.................... Alleluia! Alleluia!
.................. 2. You were their rock, their fortress, and their might;
................... you, Lord, their captain in the well-fought fight;
.................... you, in the darkness drear, their one true light.
.................... Alleluia! Alleluia!
................... 3. Oh, may your soldiers, faithful, true, and bold,
................. fight as the saints who nobly fought of old
................. and win with them the victor's crown of gold.
................... Alleluia! Alleluia!
................. 4. Oh, blest communion, fellowship divine,
.................... we feebly struggle, they in glory shine;
................... yet all are one within your great design. .................. Alleluia! Alleluia!
.................. 5. And when the strife is fierce, the warfare long,
................. steals on the ear the distant triumph song,
................... and hearts are brave again and arms are strong.
.................... Alleluia! Alleluia!
................... 6. The golden evening brightens in the west;
................... soon, soon to faithful warriors comes their rest;
.................. sweet is the calm of paradise the blest.
................... Alleluia! Alleluia!
................... 7. But then there breaks a yet more glorious day:
the saints triumphant rise in bright array;
................... the King of glory passes on his way.
.................. Alleluia! Alleluia!
.................... 8. From earth's wide bounds, from ocean's farthest coast, through
................. gates of pearl streams in the countless host,
................ singing to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost:
.................... Alleluia! Alleluia!
.................. Text: William W. How, 1823-1897, alt.
....................Music: SINE NOMINE. R. Vaughan Williams, 1872-1958
X. Recessional: ``Crown Him With Many Crowns''
.................... Please remain standing and in your seats while the family and the President depart.
Thank You: A special thank you to Donald McCullough (Music Director
of the Master Chorale of Washington and former Music Director at
the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer in McLean, Virginia
(Chief Justice Rehnquist's church) for coordinating the music for
this service. Special thanks also to Jennifer Goltz, Music Director
of St. Matthew's, for her assistance and to all the musicians who participated in this service.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 23500.002