Rehnquist Nomination
I have always had great respect for Justice Mosk, but I must comment on the one statement he makes, which seems to provide the basis for his position on the confirmation of Rehnquist.
Mosk writes: “The concepts that he advances, though often not to my taste, deserve to be ventilated and discussed.”
Why must a man of Mosk’s stature and experience have to be reminded that Supreme Court justices do not simply advance concepts, that they are the final arbiters who hand down decisions that become the law of the land until such time in the future when they may possibly be overturned?
If Rehnquist were a columnist who advanced concepts, acceptable to me or not, then of course they would deserve to be ventilated and discussed.
The unfortunate reality is that while we may discuss Supreme Court decisions all we like, there is no recourse since we learn of them after the fact and they have already become law.
It is simply not enough for Mosk to cite an occasional, rare, middle-of-the-road decision made by Rehnquist and use that to attempt to offset a lifetime of ultraconservative positions taken.
To confirm Rehnquist as chief justice would be sending a message to our people, and to the rest of the world, that we no longer believe in the things that have made this country great--we cannot allow that to happen.
MAX RUCHAMES
Long Beach
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
