Rehnquist Is Ruled Out by Rights Views

If the sign at a factory door says “Women need not apply,” U.S. Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist will likely vote to declare it illegal. But if the factory hires 98% men for jobs that large numbers of women are qualified for, Rehnquist will look the other way.

Except in the most blatant cases, Rehnquist would tell a woman who was seeking a construction job, a black man who was hoping for a promotion and a middle-aged teacher who was looking to continue his career that they were not entitled to the protection of the law.

Yet this justice, whose views are at odds with his colleagues and predecessors on the Supreme Court as well as with the intent of Congress, is on the verge of being confirmed by the Senate as the chief justice of the United States--a lifetime job that is the highest post in the federal judiciary and the constitutional equal of the President of the United States.

Since Rehnquist joined the Supreme Court 15 years ago, the court has ruled on 83 cases involving civil-rights complaints. In 80 of those decisions he voted against the rights of women, minorities, the elderly and the disabled.

Consider the following three examples in which Rehnquist turned his back on individuals seeking relief:

--The Cleveland Board of Education decided to lay off all pregnant teachers five months before their delivery dates and not rehire them until three months after they had given birth. One of the pregnant teachers sued. When the case reached the Supreme Court, Rehnquist supported the school district--even though he acknowledged that most pregnant women are able to work until their babies are born. He was alone. The court supported the woman, 8 to 1.

--In Jimenez vs. Weinberger, Rehnquist supported the denial of disability benefits to illegitimate children because it would save the government money. He ignored past rulings that children should not be discriminated against just because their parents were unmarried. Once again the eight other justices saw the case differently, and Rehnquist stood alone.

--Finally, in Markham vs. Geller, Rehnquist voted against a 55-year-old experienced teacher who was fired and replaced by an instructor half his age. The teacher had brought an age-discrimination claim against the school board, which Rehnquist voted to deny. Here again the eight other justices ruled for the teacher.

In some important ways civil-rights cases are like personal-injury cases. The denial of a job, promotion or government benefits does real and abiding personal damage. But Rehnquist’s reasoning in discrimination cases would never be accepted in personal-injury law. From an examination of his record and the drawing of an analogy, Rehnquist would rule that a pedestrian who is hit on the head by a falling safe is not entitled to damages because the moving company that dropped it did not intend harm.

Our legal system does not require that an injured person prove that his injuries were intended in order to recover damages. If a person is injured as the result of someone else’s action, that is usually enough. Justice and fairness require that injured people be compensated whether their injuries result from an accident or from discrimination.

Throughout his career Rehnquist has been particularly blind if not hostile to claims of discrimination based on race. A careful examination of some of his memorandums on school desegregation, both when he was a clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson and later when he served in the Nixon Justice Department, call into question his ability to sit on the Supreme Court, let alone to be the chief justice. He consistently sought legal ways to keep black students out of predominantly white schools.

In his 1952 memorandum to Jackson urging the affirmation of the separate-but-equal doctrine, Rehnquist argued in essence that the concept should be sustained because it is right. Twenty years later he drafted a proposed constitutional amendment that would have reversed the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education that segregated schools were inherently unequal and unconstitutional.

Rehnquist’s beliefs have been consistent. However he might now cloak his views in legal niceties, what he really believes in is racial segregation. This alone should disqualify him from a high judicial post.

In the memorandum to Jackson, Rehnquist also wrote, “The majority will determine the constitutional rights of the minority.” This view is clearly at odds with the essence of our constitutional democracy. Congress responds to the wishes of the majority, but the courts play a special role in protecting the rights of the minority.By his own admission, Rehnquist would ignore that role. If he believes in the unchecked power of the majority, perhaps he should run for Congress rather than sit on the Supreme Court.

Better yet, his views best qualify him to be the president of South Africa.