January 24, 2007
By June, with only weeks left in the term, O'Connor went to visit her old friend again. Even though he had been coming to the court every day, she, like the other justices, still believed he would be retiring soon. She'd begun to think she would spend one more year on the court before retiring herself.She knew that Rehnquist believed emphatically that the court shouldn't have two retirements at the same time. She guessed that he would imminently announce his retirement, allowing her to stay one more year.
She guessed wrong.
He stunned her by telling her: "I want to stay another year."
O'Connor was caught off guard. Rehnquist's implication was clear: She must retire now or be prepared to serve two more years. Rehnquist was unilaterally deciding both of their fates.
Now these two had known each other for over half a century, dating back to Stanford Law School. I believe IÂ’ve even read, though I do not remember where, that at some point the two future justices may have dated once or twice. They were certainly more than colleagues, they were friends.
And that leads me to wonder. Was Rehnquist’s decision one predicated upon personal stubbornness and a refusal to face his on mortality? Or was it a personal sacrifice by one friend on behalf of another – trying to stick it out so that O’Connor could have that last bit of quality time with the man she loves, despite Rehnquist’s own infirmity? I don’t know, but I’d like to believe it was the latter. And while his decision resulted in that very double vacancy that the Chief Justice wished to avoid, I believe the result is a stronger Supreme Court.
Posted by: Greg at
12:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.
19 queries taking 0.0067 seconds, 28 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.