http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/14/rehnquist.health/Rehnquist silences retirement speculation
Thursday, July 14, 2005; Posted: 11:42 p.m. EDT (03:42 GMT)
vert.rehnquist.ap.jpg
Chief Justice William Rehnquist
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist announced Thursday night that he has no plans to step down from the Supreme Court and will continue to serve as long as he can."I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement," Rehnquist said in a statement released through his family. "I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits."
A Bush administration official involved in the judicial selection process said the White House is aware of Rehnquist's statement, which was sent to the White House counsel's office.
"We take him at his word," the official said.
Two sources close to the chief justice told CNN they were not surprised because Rehnquist enjoys his work on the court -- but were surprised he felt the need to take the unusual step of issuing a statement to shoot down the retirement rumors.
"All that wild speculation must have convinced him he had to say something," one said.
Rehnquist was released earlier Thursday from a hospital near his northern Virginia home after being admitted Tuesday with a fever, said a U.S. Supreme Court spokeswoman.
The 80-year-old has been battling thyroid cancer since October and underwent a tracheotomy as part of his treatment. He endured weeks of chemotherapy and radiation.
His office has refused to characterize the seriousness of his illness, which forced him to work from home for several months and miss oral arguments in a number of cases.
Many court watchers had expected Rehnquist to announce his departure when the court concluded its annual session in June.
Instead, his colleague, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 75, announced her retirement.
Rehnquist was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1972 by President Richard Nixon and was elevated to chief justice in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan.
Sources close to Rehnquist have said he deliberately has kept his staff and friends in the dark about his future, believing it would be a distraction to the court's business if the speculation became too rampant.
"I think he's happy now just getting his work done, and the work of the other justices done. He takes that leadership role seriously," said Richard Garnett, a University of Notre Dame professor and a former law clerk for Rehnquist.
He returned to his office in December and was back on the bench in March. Rehnquist braved the cold in January to uphold tradition and swear-in President Bush for a second term.
Rehnquist's trachea tube remains in place, leaving his voice scratchy, and he uses a wheelchair to get around on long trips.
CNN's Joe Johns and Bill Mears contributed to this report.http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/12135709.htmPosted on Fri, Jul. 15, 2005
Rehnquist says he's not retiring
He will remain as chief justice "as long as my health permits," he said in a statement last night.
By Charles Lane
Washington PostWASHINGTON - Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist emphatically denied yesterday that he intended to step down from the Supreme Court, as he sought to halt a spiral of speculation about his possible retirement.
In a prepared statement, Rehnquist, who is 80 and suffering from thyroid cancer, said: "I'm not about to announce my retirement.
"I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement," he said, adding that "I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits."
In a sign that the announcement reflected a personal reaction to the speculation, Rehnquist released the statement through his family, who contacted the Associated Press shortly before 9 last night - rather than putting the news out through the court's public information office, as would usually be done.
Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg later confirmed the statement's contents.
The announcement came just hours after Rehnquist had returned home from a two-day stay at the Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, where he had gone Tuesday complaining of a fever.
The White House had no advance notice of Rehnquist's statement, press secretary Scott McClellan said. "We didn't know before the statement," he said. "The chief justice is doing an outstanding job and we are pleased that he will continue his great service to the nation."
Several allies of the White House said Rehnquist's decision to announce that he was staying would help clarify the political situation and concentrate attention back on the choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. "It makes things easier in a certain sense because it makes it clear this is a process about picking a single justice," said Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a group formed to support Bush judicial nominees.
Although hedged in the sense that the chief justice denied only an "imminent" retirement, Rehnquist's statement ends much of the uncertainty facing President Bush, who has been weighing a choice for a successor to O'Connor, who announced her resignation July 1.
Many in Washington had assumed that the White House might be delaying a nomination for O'Connor's seat until Rehnquist clarified his plans. His statement also appears to refute another popular speculative notion: that Rehnquist had already told the White House of his retirement plans, and was merely waiting for a prearranged moment to announce them.
Now both the White House and the Senate appear free to begin planning for a single confirmation process rather than two.
Perhaps more important for the chief justice, it will end an awkward interval during which reporters have camped out near his home in Arlington.
So strong had the expectations of his leaving the court become, that several members of the Senate had begun openly campaigning for O'Connor to remain on the court as Rehnquist's successor in the chief justice's chair.
Yesterday, four female senators called upon O'Connor to reconsider her retirement, saying in a letter to her that they would support her for chief justice if Rehnquist vacated the position. The senators said they were following up a similar suggestion made by Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Democrats Barbara Boxer of California and Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Republicans Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine signed the letter, saying they would "strongly recommend to President Bush that he nominate you as Chief Justice."
It was not clear whether O'Connor had seen the letter. She was traveling out of the country yesterday, Arberg said.
Rehnquist was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in October, missed much work while receiving treatments in November, and returned to the public eye by swearing in Bush on Jan. 20.
Since then, he has presided at court sessions, appearing mentally alert but physically weakened. He worked regularly at his court office. In recent days he has appeared thinner than he did during this spring's oral arguments.
Part of the reason for the speculation about the chief justice's plans is the mystery surrounding the precise nature of his condition. Thyroid cancer comes in several variants, most of them treatable, but some aggressive and usually fatal.
Although outside experts have often surmised that Rehnquist's symptoms and reported course of treatment were consistent with anaplastic thyroid cancer, a form of the disease that leaves most of its victims dead within a year of diagnosis, Rehnquist has neither confirmed nor denied those reports.
His emphatic statement last night lends credence to assessments by some doctors that perhaps his disease is not as aggressive as first suspected.
Rehnquist Statement
Here is the statement issued last night by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist:
"I want to put to rest
the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement. I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as
my health permits."
<hr size=8 noshade width="74%" align=left>
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002395242_oconnor22m.htmlFriday, July 22, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Retiring justice worries about loss of states' rights
By Ralph Thomas
Seattle Times Olympia bureauSPOKANE — Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court will likely lead to a tumultuous fight in Congress over her replacement, said yesterday there is so much "antipathy" among elected politicians toward federal judges that she worries about the future of an independent judiciary.
"I'm pretty old you know, and in all the years of my life, I don't think I've ever seen relations as strained as they are now between the judiciary and some members of Congress," O'Connor said. "It makes me very sad to see it."
O'Connor's remarks came during a round-table discussion at the annual 9th Circuit Judicial Conference, a gathering of judges and lawyers from Western states.
In her hourlong appearance, O'Connor also said she worries the federal government is encroaching too much on states' rights and stressed the importance of religious freedom. But she said the courts must "protect citizens from religious incursions by the state as well as the federal government."
In talking about her role in history as the first woman on the Supreme Court, O'Connor said the late President Reagan, who appointed her 24 years ago, deserves the most credit.
"Don't give the credit to me. I didn't make that decision; Ronald Reagan made that decision," O'Connor said. "That was just an incredible thing that he did."
O'Connor, 75, announced July 1 that she is retiring so she can spend more time with her ailing husband. The news came as a surprise in the nation's capital, especially since most people expected that Chief Justice William Rehnquist would be the next justice to step down. Rehnquist, who is battling cancer, has said he plans to stay on as long as his health permits.
President Bush this week nominated federal appeals-court Judge John Roberts Jr. to replace O'Connor.
O'Connor earlier this week praised Roberts as "a brilliant legal mind" and said he is "good in every way, except he's not a woman." O'Connor, who was confirmed unanimously, said Roberts shouldn't have trouble getting confirmed. But with some members of Congress complaining about "activist" judges, O'Connor said a lengthy confirmation process is inevitable.
She said there are efforts afoot to limit federal courts' jurisdiction "in areas that some members of Congress think that the federal courts should not be involved. And that's a new approach that is worrisome."
Courts must be independent to protect individuals from seeing their constitutional rights taken away by the legislative branch, she said. "That's a concept that we've tried to promote across the globe."
O'Connor noted that Ukraine's supreme court recently overturned that country's presidential election after finding rampant vote fraud.
"I thought that was a transforming moment in the success of our efforts to promote the rule of law and the role of an independent judiciary," she said. "And yet in our country today, we're seeing efforts to prevent that — a desire not to have an independent judiciary."
Though O'Connor was appointed by one of the nation's most popular conservative presidents, she has often riled religious conservatives. She cast the deciding vote in a ruling upholding Roe v. Wade, the landmark case legalizing abortion.
Earlier this year, she joined in a 5-4 ruling that said the display of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses violated the constitutional mandate for separation of church and state.
O'Connor said yesterday that the lack of such separation has had "violent consequences" in so many other countries, "it's hard to see why we should give that up in the face of the success that we've had."
On states' rights, O'Connor said she has always viewed state governments as laboratories. "Let them try things and see how it works," she said, citing California's effort to legalize marijuana for medical purposes as a good example. She dissented on a Supreme Court ruling that said the federal government's outright marijuana ban trumped California's law.
When O'Connor attended law school, only 3 percent of law students nationwide were women, she said. Now it's more than 50 percent.
She said she was always a little reluctant about the role-model status of being the first woman on the Supreme Court. "I never expected to be that person and was pretty scared to take it on," O'Connor said, "because it's a very hard job and I didn't want to mess it up because it would make it harder for other women to follow."
But she said her appointment by Reagan in 1981 — after the court had gone nearly two centuries without a woman justice — opened doors for women around the world.
Marsha Pechman, a federal district-court judge in Seattle, said she counts herself as one of those women. "She made such a huge difference," said Pechman, who became a state court judge in 1988 before moving to the federal bench in 1999. "I got to ride the wave of her wake."
Ralph Thomas: 360-943-9882 or rthomas@seattletimes.com
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Companyhttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=amecn6IvmZ0c&refer=usO'Connor Says She Is Worried About Future of Federal JudiciaryJuly 21 (Bloomberg) -- Retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said she is worried about the future of the federal judiciary because of a ``climate of antipathy'' in Congress.
``I don't think I've ever seen relations as strained as they are now between the judiciary and some members of Congress, and it makes me very sad to see it,'' O'Connor said today at a judicial conference in Spokane, Washington, televised on C-SPAN.
O'Connor cited congressional efforts to restrict federal court authority to decide certain issues, criticism by some lawmakers of Supreme Court decisions that cite international law and Congress's failure to raise judicial salaries to keep pace with equivalent private-sector legal jobs.
O'Connor, the first female justice, announced July 1 she will retire. President George W. Bush two days ago nominated federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. to succeed her. Yesterday, O'Connor was quoted by the Associated Press as saying Roberts was ``first rate'' though she was somewhat disappointed the nominee wasn't a woman.
Speaking at a conference of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, O'Connor cited the role of Ukraine's highest court in resolving the crisis over last year's presidential election as a ``transforming moment'' in the promotion of an independent judiciary in other nations.
``In our country today we're seeing efforts to prevent that, a desire not to have an independent judiciary,'' she said. ``That worries me.''
A `Worrisome' Approach
O'Connor said efforts in Congress to restrict federal court jurisdiction to decide particular issues were ``a new approach that's worrisome.''
Legislation introduced earlier this year would bar the Supreme Court from reviewing any government official's ``acknowledgment of God'' as the source of law or government.
Regarding judicial salaries, she said her former law clerks often earn more in their first year of private legal practice than federal judges receive. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has repeatedly called on Congress to raise judges' salaries.
``With the present climate of antipathy in Congress, I don't see any prospect for adjustment of those salaries,'' she said.
O'Connor noted that some in Congress criticized the court's March 1 decision outlawing the death penalty for juvenile murderers because it cited other nations' bans on such punishment.
``I don't personally think that it's a good idea to restrict freedom of speech or thought for any of our citizens, even if they are federal judges,'' O'Connor said.
<hr size=8 noshade width="74%" align=left>
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002395238_roberts22.htmlFriday, July 22, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Roberts makes the rounds
By David Espo
The Associated Press
CHUCK KENNEDY / KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts Jr., left, meets with U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., yesterday. Schumer said he gave Roberts a list of questions and told him to "be prepared to answer them in the best way he can" when the hearings begin.WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee John Roberts Jr. gained ground yesterday in his drive for Senate confirmation. He was rated a "non-activist judge, which everyone is looking for," by the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and was praised by several centrist Democrats.
"I'm enjoying my visits here in the Senate very much," said the 50-year-old appeals court judge, named to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
As well he might.
On the second day of a White House-choreographed confirmation campaign, Roberts had yet to draw the public opposition of a single Senate Democrat. Talk of a filibuster and partisan political brawl over the first Supreme Court vacancy in 11 years was nonexistent.
Democrats intend to use confirmation hearings later this summer to question Roberts on his views on abortion, the overturning of court precedent, invalidating acts of Congress and more. A separate struggle awaits if, as expected, they seek access to internal Justice Department memos from his days as a government attorney.
On a second day of courtesy calls in the Senate, Roberts' schedule included Sens. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Charles Schumer of New York, two of the three Democrats who opposed his nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals two years ago.
Schumer said he gave Roberts a list of more than 70 questions and told him to "be prepared to answer them in the best way he can" when the hearings begin.
Some were broadly written, such as, "Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to overturn a well-settled precedent, upon which Americans have come to rely?"
Others sought the nominee's opinion about well-known and controversial decisions of the past, such as, "Do you believe that Roe vs. Wade ... was correctly decided? What is your view of the quality of the legal reasoning in that case? Do you believe that it reached the right result." Roe. v. Wade is the landmark 1973 case that established a woman's right to an abortion.
After spending an hour with Roberts on Wednesday, Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said yesterday, "I think we have a man, I would interpret it, who is a non-activist judge, which everybody is looking for. Both sides are looking for a non-activist judge."
Specter, R-Pa., said Roberts had told him he didn't prefer labels such as liberal or conservative and "his view was that the court ought to be modest. ... The other word which he used which I thought was important was an emphasis on stability. When you talk about a modest approach by a court and an approach on stability, I think you have critical ingredients of a judge who would be non-activist."
Specter's remarks suggested he did not believe Roberts would inject personal views into his judicial rulings, a comment of potential political significance coming from a senior Republican who has long supported abortion rights.
Some abortion-rights organizations have announced their opposition, expressing fears Roberts would become part of a court majority that first erodes and eventually overturns the historic ruling.
NARAL Pro-Choice America has cited a legal brief he co-authored for a Supreme Court case while serving as deputy solicitor general in the Reagan administration. "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled," it said in part.
Asked about the legal filing, Roberts told senators during 2003 confirmation hearings to his current post that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent," he said at the time.
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/news/politics/12173529.htmFormer Rehnquist clerk picked for Supreme Court
Experts say choice might be able to avoid divisive confirmation fight
By RON HUTCHESON
Knight Ridder NewspapersWASHINGTON — President Bush on Tuesday nominated appellate Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court, choosing a quiet conservative who might be able to avoid a bitter confirmation battle.
Roberts, a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is a former clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and a former legal counsel in the Reagan White House. His nomination pleased conservative activists, who generally view him as a solid addition to the court’s conservative wing.
Democrats held their fire, saying they wanted to know more about Roberts’ opinions on abortion, individual rights and other sensitive issues. If confirmed by the Senate, he would replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a swing vote who often tipped the court balance against her more conservative colleagues.
Bush praised the nominee as a man of “extraordinary accomplishment†and integrity.
“He will strictly apply the Constitution and laws, not legislate from the bench,†Bush said in nationally televised remarks. “Judge Roberts has served his fellow citizens well. He is prepared for even greater service.â€
Roberts, 50, who has argued 39 cases at the Supreme Court and won 25, said he was humbled by his selection.
“I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps to argue a case before the court, and I don’t think it was just from the nerves,†he said.
The president signaled his determination to fight for the nomination by interrupting regular TV programming to announce it at 8 p.m. Central time. The timing gave him a chance to introduce his choice to the broadest possible audience.
As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Sam Brownback said he plans to be an active participant in the confirmation process for Roberts. The Kansas Republican, who hopes for a 2008 presidential bid, called Roberts “brilliant, well-spoken and highly qualified.â€
“I look forward to discussing his view of the Constitution,†Brownback said. “Is it a living document or is it a document that is set and has boundaries to it?â€
Sen. Kit Bond, a Missouri Republican, compared Roberts to O’Connor in his “dedication to the principles of legal tradition.†He said Roberts would “ensure that we continue to have an independent judiciary.â€
Abortion rights groups mobilized against the nomination, but leading Senate Democrats were more restrained. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada promised to withhold judgment.
“The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry,†Reid said.
The Senate is expected to begin confirmation hearings in September with the goal of approving Roberts’ appointment in time for him to join the court when the new term starts in October.
Sen. Jim Talent of Missouri, a Republican, applauded what he called Roberts’ “outstanding personal record†but said he did not want to prejudge Roberts before the confirmation hearings.
Roberts’ short tenure on the appeals court “is a reason to vet his nomination thoroughly,†Talent said.
“To me the key is, does he have an intelligent set of convictions and does he stick to them?†Talent said.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush settled on Roberts after culling a list of 11 potential nominees in the nearly three weeks since O’Connor announced her retirement. Although Roberts isn’t considered as controversial as some of the other possible court candidates, he can anticipate a grilling during the confirmation process. Even before Bush announced his choice, interest groups at both ends of the political spectrum were poised for battle.
Roberts’ views on abortion are sure to be one of the biggest friction points. While serving in the Justice Department under President George H.W. Bush in 1990, Roberts was co-author of a legal brief arguing that the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling for abortion rights “was wrongly decided and should be overruled.â€
Roberts’ defenders note that he wrote the brief in his role as an advocate, not as a judge. During his confirmation for the appellate court, Roberts said he considered Roe “settled law of the land†and added, “There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.â€
NARAL Pro-Choice America, one of the nation’s largest abortion-rights groups, called Roberts “a divisive nominee†and vowed to defeat him. The American Civil Liberties Union expressed “deep concern†about Roberts’ views on individual liberties, without specifically calling for his rejection.
Roberts, a native of Buffalo, N.Y., grew up in Indiana. He graduated with honors from Harvard Law School. Roberts went into private practice in Washington and made a fortune after serving in the Justice Department under the first President Bush.
--
First glance
■ President Bush nominates an appellate judge from D.C. to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
■ Go to KansasCity.com for more on the Supreme Court nominee.
■ Reactions from local, national figures, text of Roberts’ remarks on Page A-6
--
Upcoming cases
The Supreme Court returns to work Oct. 3 and will immediately confront some high-profile cases, among them:
■ ABORTION: The constitutionality of a New Hampshire parental notification law that lacks an emergency health exception for minors. Justices could use the case to make it harder for opponents to challenge abortion restrictions.
■ PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE: The Bush administration’s challenge to Oregon’s law allowing physician-assisted suicide.
■ DEATH PENALTY: Four capital punishment cases, including one that will determine when prisoners can use DNA evidence to get a new trial.
■ DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL: A test of a law that requires colleges that get federal funding to allow military recruiters. Some law schools want to bar recruiters as a way of protesting the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell†policy excluding openly gay persons from military service.
■ RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: The Bush administration’s appeal over a church’s use of hallucinogenic tea in its religious services. The government contends the tea is illegal and potentially dangerous.
■ POLICE SEARCHES: Whether police may search a home when one occupant consents but another does not, without violating the Fourth Amendment ban against unreasonable searches and seizures.
— The Associated Press
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 5:00 am
<p>
at: 7/14/05 9:03