[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Page 19598]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              HONORING CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

  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, one of the best luncheons we ever had. 
He answered all the questions. As I reflect on 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 he was sick and he was 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 Stanford 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 and 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.

                          ____________________