Talk:William Rehnquist

Dershowitz comment (moved to bottom of page)
Revision as of 23:07, 4 February 2006 (edit) (undo) 69.109.194.141 (Talk)

Why should Dershowitz's unfounded and inflammatory accusations of anti-semitism be included in Rehnquist's bio?

--moved by Purkowitz 05:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How are they unfounded? you present no evidence to the contrary to dispute what Dershowitz says. please be more clear on how Dershowitz is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laughingman543 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of Tenure as Chief Justice
The whole "Analysis of Tenure as Chief Justice" is one big opinion and gossip piece and is sourced to one author. It's been tagged several times by many editors. Why don't you fix it? (Wallamoose (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC))


 * "Many" does not mean what you think it means. Your complaints are selective and biased. For example, I don't hear you crying about the many conservative opinions cited on the Anthony Kennedy page. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added another citation from another author. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Several authors have tried to fix this section (if you don't like the word many), but because of your emotional problems and delusional mental state all of their efforts have been obstructed. (Wallamoose (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Under the subsection "Religion Clauses," it says, "Rehnquist wrote in a 1985 opinion that he believed the separation of church and state clause provided for in the Constitution;" there is no "separation of church and state clause" in the United States Constitution. This may be referring to the First Amendment; which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The concept of "separation of church and state" is exactly that--a concept, not an explicit provision in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.54.179 (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal health section changes
This is the current/original version of the last paragraph of the section:"For several weeks prior to hospitalization, Rehnquist had slurred his words, but there were no indications he was otherwise impaired.[82][85] Law professor Michael Dorf has observed that 'none of the Justices, law clerks or others who served with Rehnquist have so much as hinted that his Placidyl addiction affected his work, beyond its impact on his speech'.[86]"

This is the version an IP (128.253.211.40) keeps trying to make:"Contemporaneous news reports noted that Rehnquist's ''health problem' had been apparent to Supreme Court observers for three months before he was hospitalized.'[85] 'Lawyers and reporters had noticed . . . that while speaking from the bench Rehnquist's words were slurred, a possible symptom of drug dependency.'[86] In addition, he 'became tongue-tied while pronouncing long words, and sometimes had trouble finishing his thoughts.'[85] However, law professor Michael C. Dorf has observed that 'none of the Justices, law clerks or others who served with Rehnquist have so much as hinted that his Placidyl addiction affected his work, beyond its impact on his speech,' while acknowledging that 'it is also possible that Rehnquist's judgment really was impaired for some of the time that he was addicted to Placidyl.'[87] The Senate Judiciary Committee asked Rehnquist no questions about his drug use during his confirmation hearing for Chief Justice.[85]"

Three editors, myself and two others, have reverted the IP's changes. Just in case the IP wishes to try to reinstate his/her changes yet again, I'm posting this here for a record. None of the editors thinks the IP's changes are appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Aye, I agree with you. I noticed this over a year ago and have been watching. My opinion is that mention of his use of prescribed medication is innapropriate in general for an encyclopedia article -- where in-depth analysis of character is atypical. However, I find Bbb23's version to be vastly superior. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Valedictorian
Need consensus on recent edit by user 212.10.78.241 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Rehnquist&diff=690439204&oldid=690363793 MarkYabloko ''' 10:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with paring down the material from what it was, which was as much synthesis as anything else, but I would prefer a more factual statement: "Rehnquist graduated as class valedictorian." That apparently is supported by the source (I can't access the source), and readers can interpret that however they like. It's not our place to "explain" it and Stanford's policy in 1952.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ted Cruz as a pallbearer
Although Ted Cruz himself has said that he was a pallbearer at Rehnquist's funeral, I can't find any evidence to support this. The image of the casket from this page shows Rehnquist's pallbearers, and, as far as I can tell, Cruz is not among them. The Los Angeles Times article that the page links to also lists the following as pallbearers

David G. Leitch, Frederick W. Lambert, Ronald J. Tenpas, James Duff, Kerri Martin Bartlett, Gregory G. Garre, John C. Englander and Roberts

With Cruz's name absent from this list.

Cloonam (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are often "honorary pallbearers" who don't carry the casket, often due to age or infirmity. This doesn't seem to have been a reson that Ted would such a status. The Cruz family has a history of disinformation, i.e., his father's account of his supposedly being a "Molotov cocktail" thrower, and his account of his status and activities at the University of Texas, Austin. Activist (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on William Rehnquist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080114002203/http://thehill.com:80/under-the-dome/was-rehnquist-deep-throat-2005-02-23.html to http://thehill.com/under-the-dome/was-rehnquist-deep-throat-2005-02-23.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090417090413/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/politics/16cnd-roberts.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/politics/16cnd-roberts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Middle name
It looks like their is a minor editing conflict between editors about Rehnquists middle name versus the middle name he was apparently born with. As this doesn't seem to be necessary to the article (it's a cool fact, but certainly not necessary) I've opted to remove the reference all together. That way no incorrect information is being misinterpreted, in either iteration. Garchy (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is really not very helpful, and it's not much of a solution: If in doubt, tear it out? 32.218.41.26 (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what's happening here, we don't simply remove things when we're not sure what to do - this is a different case, I see squabbling about a middle name that is not pertinent to the encyclopedic integrity of this article - so I removed it. The article will do just fine without us spending too much time on this issue, it's best to move on to the next article! Garchy (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not squabbling about a middle name. As the reliable sources clearly show, it's repeated vandalism by an editor who hasn't bothered to read them or to read past the first sentence of the section. 32.218.41.26 (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's just my opinion, and I could be wrong. For me, it wasn't about reliable sources - it became about weight/undue weight for the article, especially given the disagreement about it. I'll wait for someone else to comment, and to see what has to say. Garchy (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A name change is a pretty substantial matter in anyone's life. 32.218.41.26 (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that the name change is not noteworthy. At the same time, I blame myself partly for reverting 32. because I actually didn't probe deeply enough to understand what was going on. My first preference is leave it out. However, if there's a clear consensus to reinsert the material, then I strongly suggest that it be done differently. Instead of having that long quote in the reference. Put the name change in the correct temporal place in the section and include a brief comment that he changed his name. In addition, we should put the birth name in the infobox with a citation (same one is fine). For the moment, I think the article should remain as it is unless sufficient editors believe it should be put back the way it was, with or without my amendments.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Confirmation as Associate Justice
The citation that had been supplied was a link to another search engine that leads to the Nixon tapes, but is clearly insufficient for WP purposes. It should be easy to find a better citation. I left a Cn notation. Activist (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Rehnquist Doctrine
Why is there no mention of the Rehnquist Doctrine? As I recall, the court ruled that to claim a violation of the equal protection clause, you must prove the government intended to discriminate. It was not enough to show actual discrimination. As a consequence, the court upheld the conviction of some Native Americans for their use of Peyote in a religious ceremony. Since the government's laws against use of the drug weren't written with the intention to discriminate against Native Americans, the conviction would stand. Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion. (I'm not a lawyer, so please forgive me if I got some of this wrong. I'm going from memory.) The doctrine was invoked again in a case where either Colorado, or a city in Colorado, passed a law barring LGBT people from suing for housing discrimination. When the inevitable lawsuit reached the Supreme Court, the Rehnquist doctrine was invoked by the plaintiffs, claiming that the government clearly intended to discriminate, so the law should be overturned. Rehnquist agreed and the court ruled that the law was unconstitutional. But then in Bush v Gore, Rehnquist joined the decision to order an end to the recount, citing unequal treatment of the ballots in different counties, even though there was no alleged intention to discriminate. Conservatives were very upset by this, and I think the doctrine was discredited, but I'm not sure of its fate. I came here hoping to learn more, so I'm not in a position to add the topic to the article. I don't know how significant the doctrine is these days, but it certainly was important at the time. It seems like a big oversight. --MiguelMunoz --MiguelMunoz (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

2nd amendment opinion
what was Rehnquist's view of the 2nd amendment, when he was sitting on the court and after he retired?. 2600:1700:84ED:7500:5136:DF37:1D54:5D8B (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)