What's with everyone but Souter making a statement on the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist? ("A statement from Justice David Souter is not expected, the court said.")
Of the seven who did make statements:
Those who noted his fairness: Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Ginsburg.
Those who said they'd lost a friend: Stevens, Scalia, Thomas.
Citing his leadership: Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg.
Mentioning his sense of humor: Stevens, O'Connor.
Noting his common touch: Kennedy, Ginsburg.
Noting his intellect: Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer.
Noting his dedication to judicial independence: Breyer, Ginsburg.
Paying tribute to his knowledge of the Court's history: Kennedy, Breyer.
Referring to him as "boss": Ginsburg.
No one said they "loved" him, but Justice Kennedy noted that "He loved his family," and Justice Ginsburg said she "held him in highest regard and affection."
Acknowledging his historical greatness: O'Connor.
४ सप्टेंबर, २००५
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९ टिप्पण्या:
To have the two lone academics on the court, Breyer and Scalia (who are on opposing sides of most issues), commending him for his intellect says a lot. To all of those academics who argue that Rehnquist was merely a "Republican thug" and who complain that his opinions were intellectually vapid and unmemorable, take that. R.I.P.
I find Souter's silence and the statement that he would remain so, intriguing. But I can't speculate with any intelligence on what it might mean. Can you?
"If you can't say something nice...."
On the other hand, the New York Times article quotes Souter about him. So I dunno.
Paul,
I agree with you that government workers often heap praise upon each other for little reason.
This case is a bit different: A human being died, and human beings that knew him well and worked with him are offering their eulogies for the man. It's not really a case of government workers slapping each other on the back.
Just read Dershowitz piece (in the WAPO I think). Dershowitz blasts Rehnquist and his article suggests Souter's father (a Stanford grad) may have felt Rehnquist and Stanford (in those times) was anti-semitic.
Certainly would help explain Souter silence.
Souter just wanted to score a lone dissent?
Correction to my earlier post.
I screwed up, in the Dershowitz piece it was Breyer's father not Souter's who went to Stanford.
So i conclude by saying "never mind".
What's with Souter? What's with bloggers with too much time on their hands? This reminds me of the backstabbing and attacks going on involving the Sheehan woman a month ago. Here is my blog post from then.
http://thefloridamasochist.blogspot.com/2005/08/cindy-sheehan-story-or-some-bloggers.html
Grief is a personal process. It takes on many forms. Souter's silence just like Cindy Sheehan's protests can be just two such forms. Leave the people alone. You're diving into a cesspool otherwise. Is that what you want to be thought of?
Here is
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा