(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 1 ] 

THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST 1924–2005 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST 

CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MEMORIAL TRIBUTES 

IN THE 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 


scourt1.eps
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

William H. Rehnquist 

Photograph by Dane Penland, Smithsonian Institution 

Courtesy the Supreme Court of the United States 


23500.001
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 2006

S. DOC. 109–7 

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST 

CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MEMORIAL TRIBUTES 

IN THE 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 


scourt1.eps
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

Compiled under the direction 

of the 

Joint Committee on Printing 

Trent Lott, Chairman 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ iii ] 

Order for Printing 

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 

Senators be permitted to submit tributes to Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST for the Record until September 30, 2005, and 

that all tributes be printed as a Senate document. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ v ] 

FOREWORD 

For more than 33 years on the Supreme Court of the 

United States, WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST stood his ground, insisting on both institutional vigor and constitutional rigor. 

Echoing Alexander Hamilton’s call for the ‘‘complete independence of the courts,’’ Chief Justice REHNQUIST consistently and directly defended judicial independence as the 

‘‘crown jewel’’ and the ‘‘touchstone’’ of our constitutional system of government. 

Yet Chief Justice REHNQUIST did not see judicial independence merely as an end in itself, as a license for judges to do 

as they wished, but as a means to an end. In his 19th and 

final annual report assessing the state of the judiciary, he 

wrote: ‘‘The Constitution protects judicial independence not 

to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law.’’ Thankfully, he stood for the judiciary using its independence properly to fulfill its limited, but essential, role in our system of 

government. 

Indeed, Chief Justice REHNQUIST stood for a judiciary that 

would do only what it was supposed to do. Like the legislative and executive branches, the judiciary is, after all, part 

of a system of government and can only be understood as 

such. In one dissenting opinion, Chief Justice REHNQUIST described the judiciary’s role in that system this way: ‘‘The 

Court’s role as a final expositor of the Constitution is well established, but its role as a Platonic guardian admonishing 

those responsible to public opinion as if they were truant 

schoolchildren has no similar place in our system of government.’’

One of Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s many former law clerks 

who now populate law school faculties recently wrote in tribute that ‘‘[r]unning through his opinions on any number of 

issues . . . is a commitment to the notion that our Constitution leaves the hard questions, generally speaking, to the 

people.’’ When judges stick to judging, in other words, legislators must do the legislating. I think Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST would say that is as it should be. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s legacy will live on in many 

ways. The James E. Rogers College of Law at the University 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ vi ] 

of Arizona has already established the William H. Rehnquist 

Center on the Constitutional Structures of Government. Not 

surprisingly, one of its three primary themes will be judicial 

independence. 

First as Associate and then as Chief Justice, WILLIAM H. 

REHNQUIST touched the judiciary, the country, and the law. 

But as a human being, he also touched many lives. In his 

2000 commencement address at George Washington University Law School, he painted a picture for the talented and 

ambitious graduates of a life that includes ‘‘pastimes and occupations that many can enjoy simultaneously—love for another, being a good parent to a child, service to your community.’’ Such choices, he said, ‘‘will determine how well spent 

you think your life is when you look back at it.’’

The tributes contained in this book come from Members of 

the Senate and House, from both political parties. They testify to the profound impact that WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST’s 

choices have had on the law and on the life of our Nation. 

THE HONORABLE ORRIN G. HATCH, Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ vii ] 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Order for Printing .................................................................................... iii 

Foreword ................................................................................................... v 

Biography .................................................................................................. ix 

Proceedings in the Senate: 

Tributes by Senators: 

Allen, George, of Virginia .......................................................... 57, 62 

Baucus, Max, of Montana .......................................................... 50 

Boxer, Barbara, of California .................................................... 24 

Brownback, Sam, of Kansas ...................................................... 43 

Carper, Thomas R., of Delaware ............................................... 42 

Coleman, Norm, of Minnesota .................................................. 48 

Conrad, Kent, of North Dakota ................................................. 27 

Cornyn, John, of Texas .............................................................. 32 

Corzine, Jon S., of New Jersey ................................................. 5 

Craig, Larry E., of Idaho ........................................................... 42 

Dayton, Mark, of Minnesota ..................................................... 47 

Dole, Elizabeth, of North Carolina ........................................... 64 

Durbin, Richard, of Illinois ........................................................ 19 

Enzi, Michael B., of Wyoming ................................................... 29 

Feingold, Russell D., of Wisconsin ............................................ 30 

Frist, William H., of Tennessee ...................................... 3, 4, 6, 41, 48 

Gregg, Judd, of New Hampshire ............................................... 43 

Hagel, Chuck, of Nebraska ........................................................ 32, 58 

Hatch, Orrin G., of Utah ........................................................... 24, 57 

Hutchison, Kay Bailey, of Texas ............................................... 28 

Isakson, Johnny, of Georgia ...................................................... 57 

Jeffords, James M., of Vermont ................................................ 39 

Kyl, Jon, of Arizona ................................................................... 35 

Martinez, Mel, of Florida ........................................................... 47 

McCain, John, of Arizona .......................................................... 37 

McConnell, Mitch, of Kentucky ................................................. 14, 60 

Murray, Patty, of Washington .................................................. 49 

Obama, Barack, of Illinois ......................................................... 38 

Reid, Harry, of Nevada .............................................................. 4, 12 

Sessions, Jeff, of Alabama ......................................................... 20 

Specter, Arlen, of Pennsylvania ................................................ 51 

Stabenow, Debbie, of Michigan ................................................. 60 

Stevens, Ted, of Alaska ............................................................. 17 

Voinovich, George V., of Ohio ................................................... 60 

Proceedings in the House of Representatives: 

Tributes by Representatives: 

Berman, Howard L., of California ............................................ 74, 80 

Carter, John R., of Texas .................... 80, 86, 90, 91, 96, 97, 98, 100 

Chabot, Steve, of Ohio ............................................................... 77 

Coble, Howard, of North Carolina ............................................ 76 

Davis, Tom, of Virginia .............................................................. 79 

DeLay, Tom, of Texas ................................................................ 67, 68 

Franks, Trent, of Arizona ......................................................... 83, 97 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ viii ] 

Page 

Proceedings in the House of Representatives:—Continued 

Tributes by Representatives—Continued 

Gohmert, Louie, of Texas ......................................... 78, 87, 90, 97, 99 

King, Steve, of Iowa ...................................................... 91, 97, 99, 102 

Pearce, Stevan, of New Mexico ................................................. 68 

Pelosi, Nancy, of California ....................................................... 78 

Schiff, Adam B., of California ................................................... 100 

Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr., of Wisconsin .. 69, 70, 71, 76, 77, 78, 80 

Wilson, Joe, of South Carolina .................................................. 69 

Memorial Service ...................................................................................... 103 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ ix ] 

BIOGRAPHY 

WILLIAM HUBBS REHNQUIST was born October 1, 1924, in 

Milwaukee, WI, the son of Margery Peck and William Benjamin Rehnquist. He married Natalie Cornell of San Diego, 

CA, and they had three children: James, born 1955; Janet, 

born 1957; and Nancy, born 1959. 

Justice REHNQUIST attended public elementary and high 

schools in Shorewood, WI, a suburb of Milwaukee. He received bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Stanford University, where he was Phi Beta Kappa; a master’s from Harvard 

University, Order of the Coif; and his LL.B. from Stanford 

University. 

He served in the U.S. Army Air Force in this country and 

overseas from 1943 to 1946 and was discharged with the 

rank of sergeant. 

From February 1952 to June 1953, he was clerk to the 

Honorable Robert H. Jackson, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. He practiced law in Phoenix, AZ, from 1953 to 

1969. He was engaged in a general practice of law with primary emphasis on civil litigation. In January 1969 President 

Nixon appointed him to be Assistant Attorney General in the 

Office of Legal Counsel. In 1972 he became an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. In 1986 President Reagan nominated him to be Chief Justice. 

He contributed many articles on legal subjects to various 

periodicals. He authored four books: ‘‘The Supreme Court: 

How It Was, How It Is’’; ‘‘Grand Inquests’’; ‘‘All The Laws 

But One’’; and ‘‘Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 

1876.’’

Chief Justice REHNQUIST served on the Supreme Court 

with distinction for 33 years. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

MEMORIAL TRIBUTES 

FOR 

CHIEF JUSTICE 

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 3 ] 

Proceedings in the Senate 

TUESDAY, September 6, 2005 

PRAYER

The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following 

prayer: 

Let us pray. 

Immortal, invisible, God only wise, You rule the Earth, 

sea, and sky. As we deal with Hurricane Katrina’s wake-up 

call and the death of our 16th Supreme Court Chief Justice, 

steady this great land. Make us grateful for the acts of generosity and altruism we have seen in this Nation and around 

the world. 

Help us to remember Your sovereignty as You lead us 

away from the dead-end streets of pointing fingers to the 

productive paths of self-examination. 

Like the canary in the mine, may these difficult days warn 

us of the dangers of ignoring extreme disparities in economic 

and social conditions. Forgive us when we cry pathology in 

order to justify our own indifference. Help us to build on this 

opportunity to work toward liberty and justice for all. 

Use our Senators as agents of Your will. Give them wisdom to know what is right and the courage to do it. As we 

labor to strengthen freedom in other nations, open our eyes 

to the invisible people on life’s margins in America. Hasten 

the day when justice will roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. 

We pray in Your Holy Name. Amen. 

Mr. FRIST. . . . Tomorrow, I will have more to say about 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST and the nomination of Judge Roberts for Chief Justice. 

Today, let me briefly say the Senate and the Nation mourn 

the loss of the Chief, as he was affectionately known by so 

many of us and known on the Supreme Court. We will all 

miss Chief Justice REHNQUIST—from his brilliant legal mind 

to his efficient and effective administration of the Supreme 

Court. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 4 ] 

We look forward with confidence as the President’s new 

nominee for Chief Justice, Judge Roberts, is considered. 

Judge Roberts learned from the best. He was, in fact, a clerk, 

as we all know, for then-Associate Justice REHNQUIST. There 

is no doubt in my mind that Judge Roberts has the temperament, has the skill, and has the mind to lead the Supreme 

Court for decades to come. 

With that, we have a lot to do. I know the Democratic 

leader has a statement. Then we will have time this afternoon after lunch for people to come back and make statements as well. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, much has happened in the 

weeks since we adjourned for the August recess. In just the 

last few days, we have seen tragedy strike the gulf coast and 

learned that our friend, WILLIAM REHNQUIST, Chief Justice 

of the United States, had passed. Our thoughts and our 

prayers are with those struggling to pick up the pieces on 

the gulf coast following the hurricane. And, of course, our 

thoughts and prayers are with the Chief Justice’s family. 

I had the good fortune of working with the Chief on several occasions, the first when I was head of the Democratic 

Policy Committee. I told my Democratic Senators I was going 

to ask the Chief Justice to come and talk to us. They said 

he would never do that. I called him, and he was happy to 

come. At that lunch, he displayed a great command of the 

law, of course, a strong commitment to judicial independence, and something that we didn’t know existed—a sharp 

sense of humor. Just a short time later, I got to know him 

better when he presided over the impeachment trial here in 

the Senate. 

I am grateful to have worked with him, and in addition 

have spoken to him on the telephone on several occasions at 

his office and at his home. 

As I have indicated, my condolences are with his family. 

He will be missed. . . . 

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will pay 

its respects to the late Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST. 

Senators will be able and are encouraged to make statements tomorrow morning relating to the passing of Chief 

Justice REHNQUIST. 

We will be voting at noon tomorrow on a resolution which 

expresses the sense of the Senate. The Senate will recess 

during the funeral ceremonies as a further mark of respect. 

As I mentioned earlier, we will begin consideration of the 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 5 ] 

Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill on Thursday this week. 

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my sincere condolences to the family of Chief Justice WILLIAM H. 

REHNQUIST and to recognize his achievements during a lifetime of public service. 

Throughout his life, WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST served this 

Nation with dignity and integrity, first in the Army Air 

Corps during World War II and later as an Associate and 

then Chief Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. For 33 years, 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST was a fixture on the Court, and he 

demonstrated both a love and a respect for the institution. 

He led the Judicial Conference of the United States with distinction, advocating for judicial independence during his 18- 

year tenure as Chief Justice. And even as his health declined 

in recent years, Chief Justice REHNQUIST continued to lead 

the Court, a testament to his tenacity and character. 

Although I did not always agree with his legal decisions, 

I have deep respect for Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s service to 

our Nation, and I join my colleagues in honoring him today. 

NOTIFICATION OF THE DEATH OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. 

REHNQUIST, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the 

Senate a communication from the Associate Justice of the 

Supreme Court of the United States, the Honorable Antonin 

Scalia, notifying the Senate of the death of the Chief Justice 

of the United States, the late Honorable WILLIAM H. 

REHNQUIST. 

The message is as follows: 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 

Washington, DC, September 6, 2005. 

Hon. RICHARD B. CHENEY, 

President, U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: This is to notify the Senate, through you, that the 

Chief Justice of the United States died in Arlington, Virginia, on Saturday, 

September 3, 2005. 

Very truly yours, 

ANTONIN SCALIA, 

Associate Justice. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 6 ] 

WEDNESDAY, September 7, 2005 

PRAYER

The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following 

prayer: 

Let us pray. 

Eternal Spirit, King of kings and Lord of lords, we thank 

You today for the gift of exemplary living, particularly as we 

remember our Supreme Court’s 16th Chief Justice, WILLIAM

REHNQUIST. We received inspiration from his commitment to 

public service and from his desire to invest his life in things 

that flourish beyond his lifetime. We were challenged by his 

willingness to choose duty over personal comfort. 

As many mourn his death, remind us that one day we 

must all stand before Your judgment seat, for You are the 

Chief Judge of the universe. May the reality of our accountability to You prompt us to live our lives for Your glory. 

Empower each Senator to listen to the whisper of conscience as he or she labors for liberty. May his or her first 

priority be to live for Your honor. Give all of us the power 

to rule our spirits so that we may fulfill Your purpose for our 

lives. 

We pray in Your powerful Name. Amen. 

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, just a short while ago, the Senate proceeded as a body to the U.S. Supreme Court to pay 

final respect to the late Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST. 

We continue this morning with tributes to the Chief Justice. 

Senators will be able to come to the Senate floor until 12 

noon to make those statements. 

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon today, the Senate 

proceed to a vote on the adoption of a resolution honoring 

the life of Chief Justice REHNQUIST. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, Senators should be aware that 

the next vote will occur at noon today. The Senate will also 

recess early this afternoon during the funeral for Chief Justice REHNQUIST as a further mark of respect. . . . 

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, last Saturday, in the wake of 

one terrible loss, our Nation suffered another loss, a quiet 

loss but one that was also deeply felt across the land. We 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 7 ] 

learned that WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, the 16th Chief Justice 

of the United States, had passed away. Karen and I and the 

entire Senate family extend our deepest sympathies to his 

family and to his friends. Our Nation mourns the loss of a 

great leader. 

WILLIAM REHNQUIST was an American hero—a World War 

II veteran, a lifelong public servant, a brilliant legal mind, 

and a jurist of historic consequence. He was an inspiration 

to all who knew him. This was especially true in his final 

months as he stoically fought the cancer that would eventually claim his life. 

Since October 2004, when the Chief Justice announced he 

had thyroid cancer, his chin remained up and his mind focused and devoted. Today, that optimism, that determination, that strength of spirit in purpose remain an encouragement to us all. 

I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to get to know 

WILLIAM REHNQUIST during my tenure in the Senate. I am 

honored to call him a friend. But even more, perhaps the 

most one can say of any leader, I simply feel blessed to have 

lived in his time and in the country that so benefited from 

his wisdom. 

WILLIAM REHNQUIST was born on October 1, 1924, in Milwaukee, WI. The son of William Benjamin Rehnquist, a 

paper salesman, and Margery Peck Rehnquist, a multilingual translator, he spent his childhood in the Milwaukee 

suburb of Shorewood, WI, where he attended public schools. 

Even as a young student, WILLIAM REHNQUIST expressed interest in public service, telling others he wanted to ‘‘change 

the government.’’ Well, he did exactly that. 

WILLIAM REHNQUIST grew up in an era marked by grave 

challenges and extraordinary triumphs. He saw our Nation 

rise from the depths of the Great Depression to defeat the 

threat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. 

On December 7, 1941, when Pearl Harbor was bombed, 

WILLIAM REHNQUIST was 17 years old. Shortly thereafter, he 

signed up to fight, joining the Army Air Corps, serving at 

home and abroad from 1943 to 1946. 

After the Armed Forces, with the help of the GI bill, WILLIAM REHNQUIST went on to college. At Stanford, he earned 

bachelor’s and master’s degrees in political science and graduated Phi Beta Kappa. But his academic journey was far 

from over. 

He took a brief hiatus from Stanford, heading east to Harvard for a second master’s degree, this time in government. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 8 ] 

In 1950, he returned to Stanford ready for law school and 

the defining point in his life. From Stanford, WILLIAM

REHNQUIST would graduate first in his class that included 

none other than his future colleague on the High Court, Sandra Day O’Connor. 

As a law student, he was known for his astute ability to 

defend conservatism and for his bright legal mind. One of his 

professors described WILLIAM REHNQUIST as ‘‘the outstanding student of his law school generation.’’ This same 

professor would later introduce him to Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. In a private interview, WILLIAM

REHNQUIST convinced Justice Jackson to award him with a 

coveted clerkship with the Supreme Court, despite 

REHNQUIST’s initial thoughts that he had been ‘‘written [off] 

as a total loss’’ by Justice Jackson. 

After completing his clerkship, he married Natalie Cornell. 

The couple settled in Phoenix, where they raised three children—James, Janet, and Nancy—and where Justice 

REHNQUIST would practice law for 16 years. 

As a young lawyer, WILLIAM REHNQUIST was known to 

wear loud shirts and ties, prompting even President Nixon 

to refer to him as ‘‘the guy [who] dressed like a clown.’’ But 

clearly, Nixon was impressed by what he saw on the inside 

of the young lawyer from Phoenix. President Nixon selected 

REHNQUIST to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for 

the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. 

In 1971, President Nixon nominated WILLIAM REHNQUIST

again, this time to replace Justice John Marshall Harlan as 

an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. WILLIAM

REHNQUIST was overwhelmingly confirmed by a Democratic 

Senate by a vote of 68 yeas and 26 nays. 

In 1986, President Reagan nominated WILLIAM REHNQUIST

as Chief Justice, and the Senate, by a wide margin once 

again, confirmed him to serve as the 16th Chief Justice of 

the highest court in the land. Today I echo what my good 

friend and former colleague, Senator Bob Dole said of the 

Chief Justice during that confirmation debate two decades 

ago. He was a man of ‘‘unquestioned integrity, incorruptibility, fairness, and courage.’’

During my tenure in the Senate, I had the privilege of getting to know the Chief Justice, or ‘‘the Chief’’ as the law 

clerks called him. And since our first introduction, I found 

WILLIAM REHNQUIST to be thoughtful, intelligent, and, I 

must say, quite humorous. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 9 ] 

A skilled writer and avid historian, Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST is the author of a number of books on Supreme 

Court history and the American legal system. Many articles 

have been written about WILLIAM REHNQUIST and his successes as Chief Justice of the United States, and in almost 

every one of these articles, he is praised for his superb ability to efficiently manage the Court. 

Speaking to this point, Supreme Court Justice Byron R. 

White once said: 

I have never ceased to marvel how one person could possibly carry out all 

of the tasks given the Chief Justice and yet also decide cases and write opinions as the rest of us do. Yet Chief Justices do them with regularity and, 

of the three Chief Justices with whom I have served, the man who now sits 

in the center chair in the courtroom . . . seems to me to be the least stressed 

by his responsibilities and to be the most efficient manager of his complicated schedule. 

A former adviser to the Chief Justice said that Justice 

White’s comments mirrored his own observations. He said 

that WILLIAM REHNQUIST’s rigorous work ethic and dedication to efficiency is reflected on his staff, which he, in fact, 

reduced when he became Chief Justice, relying on only three 

clerks, although he was authorized to have four. 

The former adviser described WILLIAM REHNQUIST as a 

man who could do twice the work of the average judge in 

half the time. Having worked alongside WILLIAM REHNQUIST

on the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents, I couldn’t agree 

more. I treasure the days we spent together on this Board 

of Regents. In his capacity as the chancellor of the Smithsonian, he served as chairman of the Smithsonian’s Board of 

Regents. I, in that capacity, saw firsthand the Chief Justice’s 

commitment to that institution, the Smithsonian, attending 

every meeting despite his very busy day job at the Court. He 

even hosted planning meetings for board staff and liaisons of 

the Supreme Court in the Natalie Cornell Rehnquist Dining 

Room, named after his late wife of 38 years. Recently, he 

brought the entire Court to the Smithsonian’s American History Museum to see the Brown v. Board of Education exhibit. 

As he did on the Court, since the Chief Justice became 

chancellor, he emphasized the importance of efficient management in the Smithsonian’s affairs, and he brought a certain sense of distinction to our work for the Smithsonian. 

Moreover, he inspired me to always be mindful of our duty 

to history, our place in preserving the strength of this Nation 

we serve. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 10 ] 

In recent months, while the ongoing debate in the Senate 

regarding judicial nominations was occurring, I thought a lot 

about our Federal courts and our judges. I have often wondered what are the most important qualities to look for in an 

individual who is being considered for a lifetime appointment 

on the courts. I have looked to the Chief, and I have seen 

those qualities embodied in his approach to the law—commitment to judicial restraint, fairness, integrity, impartiality, even temperament, openmindedness, and respect for 

the Constitution and the rule of law. 

What is more, WILLIAM REHNQUIST was a man not only of 

high intellect but common sense—a unique combination reflected in the clarity of his opinions. 

I witnessed firsthand WILLIAM REHNQUIST’s intelligence, 

his temperament, and his commitment to equal justice under 

the law when he became only the second Chief Justice to 

preside over a Presidential impeachment in the trial of President Bill Clinton. 

A friend of mine and a former administrative assistant to 

the Chief Justice said: 

What impressed me most about the manner in which he presided over the 

impeachment trial was his astute and facile recognition of and respect for 

the traditions and rules of the Senate. I knew he would provide impartial 

leadership but he also adjusted his superb management skills appropriately 

to the Senate’s traditions. At the conclusion of the trial he was praised by 

the Leaders of both parties. It was another demonstration of the rare combination of high intellect and common sense that he possesses. 

To this day, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle continue to remember the Chief Justice for his efficient managerial skills and his steadfast respect for the Senate during the 

impeachment trial. In an atmosphere of partisanship, the 

Chief Justice was a constant reminder of the solemn legal 

duties our Constitution requires of the Senate. 

The Chief loved the Court. He held a deep respect for the 

law and its traditions, and in turn his colleagues, even those 

with different judicial philosophies, held a deep respect for 

him. 

A former colleague who often decided cases differently 

than the Chief Justice, Justice Harry Blackmun praised WILLIAM REHNQUIST as a ‘‘splendid administrator’’ and often testified to his fairness and commitment to the coherence and 

cohesion of the Court. 

Once the Court’s leading liberal, Justice William Brennan 

called Chief Justice REHNQUIST ‘‘the most all-around successful’’ Chief that he had known and described him as ‘‘meticulously fair.’’

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 11 ] 

Another liberal on the Court, Justice Thurgood Marshall, 

described him as ‘‘a great Chief Justice.’’

In his 19 years as Chief Justice of the highest court in the 

land, Chief Justice REHNQUIST never placed himself on a 

higher plane than his colleagues. To fellow Justices, his law 

clerks and secretaries, he was sensitive, humble, and ever respectful. 

I am confident that the President’s nominee to the Chief 

Justice’s seat, Judge John Roberts, will bring the same dignity to the job and earn the same level of respect from his 

colleagues. Judge Roberts, after all, learned from the best. 

From 1980 to 1981, he was clerk to then-Associate Justice 

REHNQUIST. 

Having come to know John Roberts these last few weeks, 

there is no doubt in my mind that he has the skill, the mind, 

the philosophy, and the temperament to lead the Supreme 

Court. 

With the passing over the weekend of Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST, the Supreme Court loses one of the most prolific 

scholars and brilliant legal minds ever to sit on the Federal 

bench. His passing marks a sad day for America, but it is 

also a day to reflect on our great fortune to have had WILLIAM REHNQUIST in the service of our Nation. 

For over 33 years, Chief Justice REHNQUIST generously offered America his brilliant mind, his unwavering leadership, 

and his fair and impartial judgment. He was the embodiment of all of the ideal qualities of a judge, and his humility, 

wisdom, and superb managerial skills allowed him to become 

one of the most memorable, influential, and well-respected 

Supreme Court Justices in our history. 

Many feel that history will remember the Chief for presiding over the Senate during the impeachment trial, for his 

participation in landmark decisions, for his perseverance in 

fulfilling his duties through ailing health. I believe WILLIAM

REHNQUIST will be most remembered for his magnificent 

leadership and management, his ability to build consensus, 

his compassion and respect for others, and his fair and impartial review of each and every case that came before the 

Court. The imprint of WILLIAM REHNQUIST’s gavel will not 

fade fast. No, it is indelibly stamped upon the face of American history and the legacy of the law we uphold. America 

was blessed to have WILLIAM REHNQUIST as Chief Justice 

and today he enters the history books as one of the greatest 

Chief Justices ever to serve on the Supreme Court of the 

United States. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 12 ] 

May God bless WILLIAM REHNQUIST and may God bless 

the United States of America. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was a high school student in 

a place called Basic High School in Henderson, NV. I was a 

boy about 16 years old, and Mrs. Robinson came into the 

classroom. She was a part-time counselor and a full-time 

government teacher. She pulled me out of the class and she 

said, I have looked at all of your reports and you should go 

to law school. 

I had never met a lawyer, had never even seen a courthouse, let alone been in one, but I accepted Mrs. Robinson’s 

word that I should go to law school. From that day forward, 

that is what I set my mind to do. I came back here to go to 

law school. I was a full-time student at George Washington 

University, went to school in the daytime and worked as a 

Capitol policeman in the nighttime. 

Still having never been in a courthouse, as a law student 

in an appellate practice course I was taking, the students 

were invited to go into the Supreme Court to listen to a Supreme Court argument. I can remember going there. The 

case the professor chose was not one that sounds very exciting. It certainly did not sound very exciting to me at the 

time. It did not involve some spectacular criminal case. It involved a case called Baker v. Carr. The first time I was ever 

in a courthouse I listened to one of the most important, significant Supreme Court arguments in the history of the 

country because those lawyers debating this case, these 

issues of law, were there to talk about the one man-one vote 

doctrine, which the U.S. Supreme Court a few months later, 

after having heard these arguments, decided that we in the 

United States would be bound by one man, one vote. 

As a result of that, reapportionment took place in State 

legislatures and, of course, in the United States through the 

Federal courts. In the States where the legislature did not 

follow the one man-one vote rule, the courts took over. 

As I look back, I was so fortunate to be able to have my 

first exposure to the law in the place where I later became 

a member of the Supreme Court bar. Having heard that case 

is something I will always remember. 

I was a trial lawyer, and I have argued cases before the 

Nevada Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit, but I never 

argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. I wish I had 

had that opportunity. 

Having heard Baker v. Carr those many years ago, I have 

never forgotten it. That is why it has been so pleasant for 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 13 ] 

me to develop a personal relationship with some of the Supreme Court Justices, one of whom was the man whose funeral I will go to today at 2, WILLIAM REHNQUIST. 

I said earlier and I will say again, I had a tour of duty as 

chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee and every 

Thursday there is an off-the-record discussion that takes 

place in the Senate with Democratic Senators, and we always try to come up with things that will interest the Senators. I said to a number of my colleagues I wanted to invite 

WILLIAM REHNQUIST to come to the Democratic Policy luncheon and they said, no, he is a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, 

he is partisan, and he will not come anyway. 

I picked up the telephone and in a matter of a minute or 

two he was on the line. I said, Mr. Justice, would you come 

to this policy luncheon? You will talk for 5 or 10 minutes, 

and we will ask questions. 

Yes, I would like to do that. 

He came over to the LBJ Room and it was one of the best 

luncheons we ever had. He answered all the questions. As I 

reflect on Chief Justice REHNQUIST coming to that Democratic Policy luncheon, the thing I remember more than anything else is how funny he was. He was a man physically 

large in stature with a biting sense of humor. 

I felt so comfortable having him preside over the impeachment trial. That was also kind of an awkward time for me. 

I had just been selected as the assistant Democratic leader. 

I had this seat right here. I had never sat so close to what 

was going on before and I felt so uncomfortable sitting here. 

My first tour of duty in the Senate in that seat was as a Senator as part of the impeachment trial of President Clinton. 

Of course, I visited with him, talked to him when he kept 

getting up. He had a bad back and he suffered a lot from 

physical pain for many years as a result of his back. He 

would get up every 20 minutes or so and stand and walk 

around his chair. I had a number of very nice, warm conversations with him at that time. 

The conversation I will remember beyond all other conversations with the Chief Justice, there was so much speculation in the newspapers about how he was sick and was he 

going to step down and would it be this Monday or the next 

Monday or when was it going to be. So in that I felt comfortable and had spoken to him on the telephone a number 

of occasions, I called him at his home and I said, I am sorry 

to bother you at home. He was not well. I said, the simple 

reason I have called you is to say, do not resign. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 14 ] 

He said, I am not going to. 

I am not going to talk about all that was said during the 

call, but I would say he told me he was not going to resign. 

I will always remember that telephone conversation with the 

Chief Justice of the United States. I am confident I did the 

right thing in calling him. I did not tell any of my colleagues. 

I did not tell my family. I did not tell anybody, but I picked 

up the telephone and I called him, and I am glad I did. 

So I join with the distinguished majority leader in spreading on the record of this Senate the accolades for this good 

man. He was very politically conservative, so I understand. 

He served as a lawyer for 16 years after he graduated first 

in his class at Stanford Law School, and I have a great 

amount of affection for that law school. One of my boys went 

to Stanford. It was a wonderful place to go to school. He 

served in the Army Air Corps. He was Phi Beta Kappa. That 

was not enough education for him. He got a second master’s 

degree at Harvard University after having gotten a master’s 

degree at Stanford. 

I am sorry that he is not going to be on the Court any 

more because I thought he was an outstanding administrator. He spoke for the Federal judges with strength and 

clarity. When we kept piling stuff on Federal judges to give 

them jurisdiction to do things, he complained about it. He 

said they work too hard, they have too much to do. So we 

are going to miss his voice. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, it is my privilege to 

join others in discussing the life and career of the late Chief 

Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST. Chief Justice REHNQUIST was 

only the 16th Chief Justice in American history. John Jay 

was the first, sworn in on October 1789. Many of us had an 

opportunity to go over and pay our respects, over in the Supreme Court a few moments ago, and had a chance to look 

at the busts of those Chief Justices. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST filled the role defined for him by 

our Founding Fathers with wisdom and with dignity. Millions of Americans honor him for his legacy of achievement. 

When I went home last night, I noticed a long line of people 

waiting to file past the casket and pay their respects to this 

wonderful man. 

I first met the Chief Justice in 1969 here in Washington. 

At the time, he was Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. I was a young legislative aide to a Senator named Marlow Cook, who represented the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Senator Cook was on the Judiciary 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 15 ] 

Committee and this was a period in which there were a couple of highly contentious Supreme Court nominations. Judge 

Clement Haynsworth of the Fourth Circuit, who was subsequently defeated, and District Judge Harold Carswell from 

Florida, who was also defeated. So President Nixon had not 

only one but two nominations at the Supreme Court defeated. 

BILL REHNQUIST, which is what I called him in those days, 

was the guy who sort of crafted the speeches and helped us, 

helped the Republicans and as many Democrats who were 

interested in supporting those two nominees—helped us craft 

the speeches and did the important work of helping us express ourselves. My boss ended up supporting Haynsworth 

and opposing Carswell, so I was not working with BILL

REHNQUIST on the second nomination. 

He was an extraordinary person: Dedicated, hard working, 

the smartest lawyer I had ever been around at that point, 

and even after all these years I would still say he was the 

smartest lawyer I had ever been around; a keen intellect 

with a very sharp mind. He was also, as others have pointed 

out and will point out this morning, a kind and personable 

man, which he remained even while rising to the foremost 

position in American jurisprudence. 

After working for Senator Cook, I returned to Kentucky in 

January 1971, thinking I was sort of through with Washington. Toward the end of the year, to my surprise and 

pleasure, President Nixon nominated BILL REHNQUIST to be 

on the Supreme Court. So, on my own nickel, I came back 

to Washington for a month and worked on his confirmation—

just as a volunteer, and did odd jobs and helped do whatever 

was thought to be appropriate by those who were officially 

in charge of his confirmation. But it was a thrill to see him 

confirmed to the Supreme Court. 

Later, in 1986, when President Reagan elevated Justice 

REHNQUIST to the Chief Justice position, by then I was a 

Member of this body and, in fact, a member of the Judiciary 

Committee. So that was my second opportunity to work on 

a WILLIAM REHNQUIST nomination to the Supreme Court. Of 

course, I was proud to be involved in that and very proud to 

vote to confirm him. 

The Chief Justice served our country with his characteristic wisdom and grace. After leading the Court for 19 

years, he was the longest serving Chief Justice since 1910. 

He was only the fifth Chief Justice in our Nation’s history 

to have previously served as an Associate Justice. He exemVerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 16 ] 

plified the highest virtue for a Justice: He entered each case 

with an open mind, free of bias, never prejudging the case 

before the decision was made. In fact, some of his decisions 

over the years surprised observers and proved that he was 

willing to rethink opinions he may have once held. Actually, 

that is a good thing. 

He reminded us that judges should be like umpires—never 

taking sides, just fairly applying the rules. 

He leaves behind him a legacy that will be studied for generations. I would submit that a chief component of that legacy will be his steering the Supreme Court back toward the 

principle of federalism, which, alongside separation of powers, stands as one of the two structural principles undergirding our Constitution. Chief Justice REHNQUIST expressed 

that view in dissent after dissent in the early years when he 

was on the Court until, with time, his dissenting views became majority ones. Because of his clear understanding of 

the underlying purpose of federalism, he worked to establish 

a jurisprudence that guards against untrammeled Federal 

power and helps ensure that decisions that are purely local 

in nature will remain in the hands of the citizens who must, 

of course, abide by them. 

The Chief Justice earned a reputation for being a fair and 

even-handed leader of the High Court. Former Justice William Brennan, who was frequently on the opposite side in 

cases, said Chief Justice REHNQUIST was ‘‘meticulously fair 

in assigning opinions.’’ He went on to say that since 

REHNQUIST’s ascension to the Chief Justice position, ‘‘I can’t 

begin to tell you how much better all of us feel . . . and how 

fond all of us are of him personally.’’ That was Justice Brennan, with whom Justice REHNQUIST rarely agreed. 

In this recent age of many 5-to-4 decisions, it is all the 

more extraordinary that the Chief Justice created such a 

harmonious court. The late Justice Thurgood Marshall, who 

served with the Chief Justice from 1972 to 1991, said simply 

that WILLIAM REHNQUIST is ‘‘a great Chief Justice.’’

As Chief Justice, WILLIAM REHNQUIST was the same honest and upright man I had observed when I first met him 

back in 1969. In his final months as Chief, he reminded us 

all once again what it means to serve with dignity and 

honor, as he persevered through his fight with cancer. Who 

was not moved to see the concept of ‘‘duty’’ personified on 

January 20, 2005, when, under extraordinary physical duress, he administered the oath of office to the President of 

the United States? 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 17 ] 

This Nation owes Chief Justice REHNQUIST a debt that can 

never be fully repaid. He served his country in combat with 

the Army Air Corps during World War II, as a law clerk to 

Associate Justice Robert Jackson, as an Assistant Attorney 

General, as Associate Justice, and finally as Chief Justice of 

the United States. Throughout it all he stood for the rule of 

law and the upholding of the principles that this Republic 

holds dear. In my opinion, he was the most consequential 

Chief Justice since John Marshall. I repeat: the most consequential Chief Justice since John Marshall. 

Elaine and I extend our sympathies to his family, his 

daughters Janet and Nancy, his son James, his sister Jean, 

and his nine grandchildren. 

As miraculous a document as it is, the Constitution is only 

words on paper. It requires men and women of principle to 

see its meaning and spirit made real. WILLIAM REHNQUIST

was one of those persons. Our grateful Nation will always remember his heroic service and his devotion to duty until the 

very end. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska. 

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, let me thank the distinguished Democratic whip for letting me precede him in making this statement. 

It was with great sadness that I learned of Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST’s passing, and even sadder when I joined the 

Senate to pay our last respects to him this morning. 

I first met BILL REHNQUIST in 1952. We were both young 

lawyers here in Washington, DC. We each had taken jobs 

here in Washington after finishing law school and in the 

course of many months became very good friends. In fact, my 

first date with my first wife was double-dating with BILL

REHNQUIST. 

We had both served in the Army Air Corps during World 

War II, and we were comrades in the deepest sense of the 

word. I respected BILL personally then and professionally. 

He was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Jackson. 

He took his responsibilities to the Court and to the American people very seriously. BILL REHNQUIST was devoted to 

the rule of law and to our democratic system. 

In many of our Nation’s most turbulent moments, we relied upon Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s commitment to the law 

to steer us toward calmer waters. History will remember his 

evenhandedness and his impartiality in the face of tough deVerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 18 ] 

cisions. During the impeachment process, which he chaired 

in the Senate, the Chief demonstrated his fairness and his 

commitment to follow precisely our Constitution and the 

precedents of the past. It was during that time that I once 

again had the privilege of sharing lunches and coffees and 

just talking off the floor with my great friend of the past. 

BILL REHNQUIST was a humble and gracious man, as we 

all know. Among his clerks and among his friends, he was 

known just as ‘‘the Chief,’’ and he was guided by the belief 

that no man is more important than the nation or the institution he serves. It was this belief that guided his efforts to 

narrow the concept of judicial activism and restore our system to its constitutional roots. 

I didn’t always agree with BILL REHNQUIST. As a matter 

of fact, as young lawyers, we had a lot of arguments. But I 

knew he was a brilliant man, and he proved to be a great 

administrator for our Supreme Court. Those of us who knew 

the Chief respected his commitment to law and valued his 

advice and counsel. His friends were from all walks of life. 

He counted law clerks, Senators, Congressmen, and Presidents among his friends. 

He embodied the lines in the Rudyard Kipling poem, ‘‘If.’’

BILL REHNQUIST could ‘‘walk with kings’’ without losing ‘‘the 

common touch.’’

Those of you who knew him will miss the Chief’s wry 

sense of humor. As a matter of fact, inspired by a costume 

from his favorite Gilbert and Sullivan operetta, he is the 

only Justice who added four gold stripes to each sleeve of his 

black Supreme Court robe. 

He also loved a practical joke. One of my favorite stories 

is an April Fools’ prank played on Chief Justice Warren 

Burger, with whom I also served at the Department of Justice. BILL put a life-size photo of Warren Burger on the front 

steps of the Supreme Court Building with a sign asking tourists to pay $1 to get a picture with the Chief Justice. Remember, it was April Fools’ Day. He then drove the Chief 

Justice by those steps so he could see his reaction to this 

prank. 

But he said once to me, ‘‘The Chief Justice brings to the 

office no one but himself.’’ This may be true, but this Chief 

Justice leaves office with the gratitude of our entire Nation. 

You can see it today in those long lines over by the Supreme 

Court. The Supreme Court has lost a great legal mind, the 

country has lost a devoted public servant, and I have lost another good friend. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 19 ] 

Catherine and I extend our deepest sympathies to BILL’s 

family and friends. He will be missed by all—greatly by me. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois. 

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, very much. I will try to be brief 

and to the point. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST was a person I probably disagreed with in most political arguments. I read his opinions, 

and I realized that we just looked at the world in a different 

way. Yet I liked him. I liked him a lot. 

I had two direct contacts with him as a U.S. Senator. The 

first time was as a new Member of the Senate and as a 

member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I received 

an invitation to come across the street, which is unusual, 

from the Senate to the Supreme Court for lunch. It was with 

a Federal judicial council. I was flattered and accepted the 

invitation. I then started asking the staff: Who are these 

people? They said: They are Federal judges from all across 

the United States. They gather together infrequently across 

the street for lunch in the Supreme Court, in a large chamber with the Chief Justice. They have invited you to come 

and speak to them. 

Reflecting on my storied legal career as a small-town lawyer in Springfield, IL, and the fact that I didn’t set the world 

on fire in law school, I wondered why they would ever invite 

me. Then it dawned on me. I was the ranking member on 

the Court Administrations Subcommittee of the Judiciary 

Committee which had responsibility for determining the salaries of Federal judges. So they were going to entertain me 

for lunch and pay close attention to all of my views in the 

hopes that I would listen carefully when they recommended 

increases in judicial salaries. That is exactly what happened. 

But the circumstances of that meeting were amazing. 

It was a large room and a huge table. There were two 

chairs empty as I walked into the room with all of these Federal judges in every direction. I sat in one of them. Then we 

waited quietly, and the door of the back room opened and everyone stood as Chief Justice REHNQUIST came in to sit next 

to me. As he sat down, I thought to myself: There isn’t a single law professor I ever had in school who would ever dream 

I would be sitting next to the Chief Justice, but I am certain 

my mother looking down from Heaven thought it was entirely appropriate that her son was sitting next to the Chief 

Justice of the United States. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 20 ] 

The second time was the impeachment trial in the Senate, 

which was presided over by Chief Justice REHNQUIST. There 

is a small room called the President’s Room. It is a historic 

chamber, and people often go in there for quick meetings off 

the floor. It became the Chief Justice’s office when he was 

here for the impeachment trial. It was a curious setup because as you walked by there, he had a desk that was literally smack dab in the center of the room with the chair behind it, and I do not recall that there was any other furniture in the room. He just kind of sat there isolated, like 

this little island. I would walk by and glance in there from 

time to time. 

Finally, I got the courage to walk in and talk to him. He 

dropped what he was doing and started talking right away. 

I was impressed. The man was entirely approachable, personable, and funny. He had a ton of questions about the Senate because he had been for over 30 years at the Supreme 

Court and the Senate was brand new to him. He asked basic 

questions and joked about the rollcalls. He said, ‘‘I love it 

when we have a rollcall, and it will be Bayh ‘aye’ and Snowe 

‘no.’ ’’ He said, ‘‘I just love to listen as you call the roll here 

in the Senate.’’

We had a great conversation. He gave me a book he had 

written about the impeachment process. He agreed to autograph a few things. I really liked him a lot personally. 

I can understand why those who disagreed with him politically still thought the world of Chief Justice WILLIAM

REHNQUIST. He was a man dedicated to public service. I respected him so much for that. 

As others have said, when he showed up in frail health at 

the second inauguration of President George W. Bush on a 

blustery, cold day to administer the oath, it was a great gesture on his part. It showed his personal commitment to his 

job as Chief Justice, his love of his Nation, and his responsibility. We are going to miss him. Very few men and women 

ever get the chance to serve as Chief Justice. 

The Rehnquist court was a court which because of his 

leadership will be remembered for many years to come. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I will share a few personal thoughts about Chief Justice REHNQUIST. I came to appreciate Justice REHNQUIST as a young prosecutor. I was an 

assistant U.S. attorney, and tried a lot of cases and was involved in a lot of cases and had to read Supreme Court opinions on criminal law. I was impressed with his writings. It 

touched me in many ways. I felt he was speaking the truth 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 21 ] 

when other Justices were missing and not understanding the 

reality of law enforcement in America. 

This was in the mid-1970s, when our crime was increasing 

at an exponential rate. We had double-digit percentage increases in crime in the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1950s, we 

did not lock the door of our house, and we left our keys in 

the car. People did not worry about crime. It became a growing problem. At the same time crime was surging, the Warren court handcuffed the police and their ability to deal with 

it. 

Justice REHNQUIST, during the Warren court years, would 

often write dissents. Sometimes he would be the lone dissenter. I distinctly remember being in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Mobile, AL, reading an opinion and calling my colleagues to say: Look at this. At least one Justice understands 

the reality of crime and law enforcement in America. 

He helped create a different approach to law and order in 

America. Instead of ruling on emotion and politics, he made 

his decisions based on the law and facts. In fact, before he 

left office, cases he was dissenting 8 to 1, he was winning a 

number of them 5 to 4 and 6 to 3. What an accomplishment 

to see that happen over a lifetime. I never would have 

thought it possible. I thought the trends were against that. 

Being young, I never thought we would see the pendulum 

swing back, but it did, and he played a key role in that. 

From my observations as a member of the Department of 

Justice for nearly 15 years, as a member, now, of the Senate 

Judiciary Committee for 8 years, where I currently chair the 

Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, 

my humble opinion is Chief Justice REHNQUIST is one of the 

greatest Chief Justices ever to serve. Senator McConnell said 

after John Marshall, but I don’t know. I am not sure any 

have served more ably. 

He was also a great Associate Justice. He wrote clean, succinct opinions that made sense. They were consistent with 

the law of our country and our heritage. 

He came to the Court when the Warren court was in full 

bloom and judicial activism was at its apex. In case after 

case, he was the lone member of that Court to sound the 

alarm about the dangers that arise when a court detaches 

itself from a principled and honest commitment to the Constitution of the United States of America and the laws we 

passed. He saw the dangers in that, and he dissented many 

times—he joined with the majority many times, but he disVerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 22 ] 

sented many times—on matters of great principle in an intelligent and effective way. 

He played a key role in the demise of judicial activism as 

a dominant view of the Court. By ‘‘judicial activism’’—I will 

paraphrase Senator Hatch’s definition of it—it means when 

a judge allows their personal or political views about what 

is good policy or bad policy to affect their rulings in a case. 

It is not faithful to the Constitution when you twist the 

words of the Constitution or of a statute so they come out to 

mean what you would like them to in order to achieve the 

result that you prefer in a given case. Justice REHNQUIST

loved our Constitution, the one that we have, the good parts 

of it and the parts he may not agree with. He loved every 

section and respected each one of them. He followed them 

and was faithful to them. 

He understood liberty in America is dependent on order. 

Look what is happening, so sadly, in New Orleans: police are 

threatened, doctors and nurses could not get out to help or 

rescue people because order broke down. The Founders of 

our Republic never doubted the Government and the law enforcement of the United States of America. The States and 

counties and cities had to have certain authority to maintain 

order or we would never have liberty. This extreme commitment to libertarian views can undermine the basic order necessary to allow liberty to flourish in our individual capability 

first. He understood that very critically. 

An example of the dangers he saw on the Court would be 

in death penalty cases. Chief Justice REHNQUIST, as Associate Justice and as Chief, fully understood the Constitution 

makes at least eight references to capital crimes, to not 

being able to take someone’s life without due process; at 

least eight references were made in that great document to 

the death penalty. How could the Constitution declare the 

death penalty was unconstitutional when it absolutely approved it? 

Two Justices dissented in every single death penalty case, 

saying they thought it was cruel and unusual punishment. 

What a weird, unprincipled dangerous interpretation of the 

Constitution. Justice REHNQUIST stood against that tide, 

often as a lone Associate Justice. 

Until now, people have come to realize that the Constitution and laws of this country allow a State or the Federal 

Government to have a death penalty, if they choose to have 

it. If you do not like that, take it to your legislative branch. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 23 ] 

The Constitution does not prohibit it, for Heaven’s sake. The 

Constitution explicitly authorizes it. 

He had a good understanding of church and state. I remember Senator Reid, the distinguished majority leader 

now, when he was the assistant leader under Thomas 

Daschle during that year when they were in the majority, 

and the Ninth Circuit struck down the Pledge of Allegiance, 

he criticized the Ninth Circuit. I have been a big critic of the 

Ninth Circuit, but I remember making remarks at that time 

saying as big a critic of the Ninth Circuit and as much of a 

critic of their striking down the Pledge of Allegiance, I have 

to say many Supreme Court rulings on separation of church 

and state are so extreme that could well be justified under 

language of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court 

has given us a very confused jurisprudence on what is a legitimate separation of church and state in America. 

We got to the point in one case, the Jaffree case from Alabama, the Supreme Court, by a 6 to 3 majority, struck down 

a moment of silence in a classroom. Justice REHNQUIST dissented in that case, as he consistently dissented against 

some of the confused thinking that was there. 

If this court had followed Justice REHNQUIST’s thoughts 

and opinions on the question of separation of church and 

state, we would not have the confusion we have today. We 

would not have one case where the Ten Commandments in 

Texas are OK and another case in Alabama where the Ten 

Commandments are not OK. What kind of jurisprudence is 

that? We need to get that straight. The Court has failed, in 

my view, in establishment clause jurisprudence. But Chief 

Justice REHNQUIST has been a consistent and sound and reasonable voice on how to strike the proper balance. We need 

to go back and continue to read those opinions and see if we 

cannot make them correct. 

He also was a student of America. He wrote a number of 

books, grand inquests about impeachments, before we had 

the Clinton impeachment case in this body. He wrote a book, 

‘‘All The Laws But One,’’ that deals with the rule of law in 

America in a time of crisis, and dealt with the Civil War and 

other times in our country. He was a historian who understood America, understood our exceptional nature, our commitment to law and the Constitution. He understood that 

deeply. Every day when he went to work, every opinion he 

ever wrote was consistent with his view and respect for 

America, her heritage, her rule of law, and her Constitution. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 24 ] 

He understood that States have certain powers in our 

country. He understood that the Federal Government, 

through the commerce clause, has broad power, but there are 

limits to the reach of the commerce clause. It does not cover 

every single matter the U.S. Senate may desire to legislate 

on, to the extent that the Federal Government controls even 

simple, discrete actions within a State. He reestablished a 

respect for State law and State sovereignty through a number of his federalism opinions. 

Madam President, we have lost one of the Nation’s great 

Justices, a man who respected our Constitution, gave his life 

to his country, his whole professional career. All of us should 

be proud of that service and honor his memory. 

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise today with a heavy 

heart. We have all watched in horror as the Gulf Coast has 

been struck by what could be called the worst natural disaster in our history. 

Over the weekend, Chief Justice REHNQUIST, who served 

our Court and country with such distinction for 33 years, 

and showed such bravery in the last months of his life, 

passed away. 

We have now lost nearly 2,000 young men and women in 

Iraq, and we still do not have, in my opinion, a credible plan, 

a mission, a timetable to achieve success and bring our 

troops home. Gas prices are putting horrible strains on most 

Americans. 

There is a tremendous amount of anxiety in America 

today. I feel it when I go home to California. We must confront it immediately in the Senate, in the House, and, yes, 

at the White House. . . . 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to a 

good man whom I knew well, who was a great judge, the late 

Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST. 

His service and leadership on the Supreme Court, the 

principles he consistently followed, and the steady hand with 

which he guided the judiciary make him one of the judiciary’s very best. 

WILLIAM HUBBS REHNQUIST served on the Supreme Court 

of the United States for 33 years and almost 8 months. 

He was the 8th longest serving of the Court’s 108 members, having recently surpassed the tenure of the legendary 

Justice Joseph Story. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 25 ] 

He was the 4th longest serving of the Court’s 16 Chief Justices, and 1 of just 5 individuals to have served as both Associate and Chief Justice. 

WILLIAM REHNQUIST’s service was a powerful mixture of 

the personal and the professional. 

He brought a kind of dignified practicality, or perhaps it 

was practical dignity, to what is one of the most formal and 

respected posts in the Federal Government. 

WILLIAM REHNQUIST was the historian who could play a 

practical joke, the defender of the judicial institution who 

played poker with his colleagues. 

We will miss this scholar and author, who also led an annual Christmas carol sing-along for the Court’s employees. 

Yesterday his former clerks surrounded his casket and carried it past his former colleagues into the Court where he lay 

in repose in a plain white pine casket. It was so touching. 

We were all touched by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor 

weeping at the loss of a man who had been a fellow law student more than 50 years ago and was a fellow Justice for the 

past 24. He was No. 1 in his class; she was No. 3. They were 

close friends. 

The respected legal analyst Stuart Taylor writes that one 

attribute of greatness is being esteemed by one’s colleagues. 

Whether his fellow Justices voted with him or against him 

on the cases before the Court, they all cherished and esteemed him. 

Liberal icons such as Justice William Brennan called Chief 

Justice REHNQUIST a breath of fresh air. 

Justice Thurgood Marshall called him a great Chief Justice. 

Justice Lewis Powell said he had a good sense of humor 

and was both generous and principled. 

When President Nixon nominated WILLIAM REHNQUIST to 

be an Associate Justice in 1971, Attorney General John 

Mitchell said he expected Justice REHNQUIST to be independent. 

Before the Judiciary Committee, the nominee pledged as 

his fundamental commitment to totally disregard his own 

personal beliefs when interpreting and applying the law. 

Democratic Senator John McClellan of Arkansas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, explained in the pages of the 

New York Times why he supported what he called a distinguished nominee. 

He said that WILLIAM REHNQUIST would not contribute to 

the trend of pursuing abstract goals driven by ideology rathVerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 26 ] 

er than law. As both Associate and Chief Justice, WILLIAM

REHNQUIST confirmed Senator McClellan’s judgment. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST strongly defended the prerogatives of the judicial branch. This alone might give pause to 

those who believe the judiciary was already too strong. 

But he coupled that commitment to institutional vigor 

with a fidelity to constitutional rigor. 

While insisting that the Court was the primary interpreter 

of the Constitution, he did not join those who said the Constitution’s meaning ebbed and flowed with the latest cultural 

and political fad. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST understood that we entrust interpretation of our laws to unelected judges only because, as he 

had, they promise to keep their own moral and political 

viewpoints on the sideline. 

Over time, by example and leadership, this principle 

helped him move the Court toward its traditionally modest 

role within our system of government. 

Commentators and reporters discussing the Chief Justice’s 

legacy almost reflexively use the moniker ‘‘Lone Ranger’’ to 

describe the new Associate Justice REHNQUIST. 

He was sometimes a lonely dissenter on a Court that saw 

itself as the vanguard of social change. 

In that role, however, he reminded us of the fundamental 

principles that should guide the judiciary. 

Judges may not exercise judicial review based on their personal opinions, preferences, or agendas. They must take the 

Constitution as they find it and apply it as it is. 

As new Justices joined the Court, and Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST continued articulating and applying such traditional principles, he found himself with more company. 

While some talk of Chief Justices as able to bring colleagues together in a particular case, Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST did so, patiently and steadily, over the long haul 

of his entire tenure. 

In a 1996 address at American University’s Washington 

College of Law, Chief Justice REHNQUIST called judicial independence the ‘‘crown jewel’’ of the American judicial system. 

He took this seriously on a personal as well as a judicial 

level. 

In this last year or so, WILLIAM HUBBS REHNQUIST lived 

and finished life on this Earth in his own independent way. 

He shared what he wanted to share, when and how he 

chose to share it. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 27 ] 

He carried himself with dignity, in a way protecting his 

privacy publicly, if such a thing is possible. 

He was a good man and a good judge. 

Our lives, individually as citizens and collectively as a Nation, are much better for him having been among us. 

I knew him personally. I know what a great man he was, 

as far as I am concerned. I know what a supreme intellect 

he was on that Court. I know what a decent, honorable, honest person he was on that Court. I can remember one lunch 

I had with Chief Justice REHNQUIST, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy. It was a terrific luncheon, filled with intellectual repartee. It was a luncheon that I will never forget. I 

can remember his smiling from time to time as his colleagues made some of their points. He had this wry sense of 

humor that I suppose came from the people that he was born 

and raised with in his own State. This is a man of tremendous, inestimable talent, intellect, and ability. But he was 

warm. He was kind. He was decent. The only time I saw any 

flare for the unusual was the stripes on his black robe. That 

was done tongue in cheek, to just kind of lampoon some of 

the overseriousness some of us sometimes have with regard 

to the Supreme Court. 

WILLIAM REHNQUIST was a good father. His daughter 

Janet worked with us on my staff for a short time. I think 

the world of her. She is a good person. The other offspring 

of Chief Justice REHNQUIST are also good people. I knew 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s wife who preceded him in death. 

She was a beautiful, lovely human being, to whom he gave 

great deference. This was a man who counted. This was a 

Chief Justice who made a difference. This is a person whom 

I respect and whom I care for. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today we remember the life 

and dedication of one of the most influential leaders of the 

U.S. Supreme Court. 

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, 16th Chief Justice of the United 

States, passed away on Saturday, September 3, 2005. A midwesterner, REHNQUIST’s service to our country dates back to 

March 1943 when he was drafted into the U.S. Army Air 

Corps, the equivalent of today’s U.S. Air Force. He served in 

World War II until 1946. 

After his time in the military, REHNQUIST began his academic journey under the GI bill at Stanford University, 

where he earned a bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree, and 

ultimately graduated first in his class at the Stanford Law 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 28 ] 

School. After clerking for Justice Robert H. Jackson, 

REHNQUIST spent the next 16 years in private practice in Arizona. 

In 1971, President Nixon nominated WILLIAM REHNQUIST

to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. As Associate Justice, REHNQUIST was nicknamed the ‘‘Lone Ranger’’

for his many lone dissents on the nine-member Court. 

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan elevated WILLIAM

REHNQUIST to Chief Justice of the United States. In that 

role, REHNQUIST became known for his ability to foster and 

retain collegiality among Associate Justices with widely differing views on the issues before the Court. He was an outstanding leader of the judicial branch of our Government. 

Those of us in the Senate probably remember him best for 

his service during the impeachment trial for President Clinton. He presided over that historic event with dignity and 

decorum. 

Over the past year, as he battled cancer, Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST was as determined and sharp as ever, doing his 

job faithfully until the day that he passed away. 

Today, we remember the Chief Justice’s passion, dedication, and brilliance. And we also remember his great sense 

of humor. BILL REHNQUIST will be sorely missed by his family, his friends, and his country. 

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor one of our country’s greatest judicial leaders, 

a noble public servant, the 16th Chief Justice of the United 

States, WILLIAM HUBBS REHNQUIST. For the past 33 years, 

the last 19 of which as its leader, Chief Justice REHNQUIST

served the Supreme Court with honor, wisdom, and keen 

judgment. His record will be remembered as one of ideological dedication and devotion in a court of consensus and 

collegiality. 

A native of Milwaukee, WI, WILLIAM REHNQUIST first answered his country’s call to service in World War II by serving in the Army Air Corps as a weather observer in North 

Africa from 1943 to 1946. Upon his return, he earned his 

bachelor’s and master’s degrees in political science from 

Stanford University in 1948, and a master’s degree in government from Harvard University in 1950. He earned his 

L.L.B. from Stanford in 1952, graduating first in his class, 

a class that included his future Supreme Court colleague 

Sandra Day O’Connor. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s first experience with the Supreme Court came when he clerked for Associate Supreme 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 29 ] 

Court Justice Robert Jackson. REHNQUIST observed during 

this time at the Court what he would later describe as the 

‘‘expansion of federal power at the expense of State power.’’

After his clerkship, REHNQUIST moved to Phoenix, AZ, 

where he practiced law in the private sector for more than 

15 years. During this time, he became involved in politics; 

and when President Nixon was elected in 1968, REHNQUIST

was asked to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the 

Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Three years 

later, in 1971, President Nixon nominated REHNQUIST to replace Justice John Marshall Harlan on the U.S. Supreme 

Court. 

From his early years as an Associate Justice through his 

years as the Court’s leader, Chief Justice REHNQUIST chartered a course to reestablish the important principle of federalism, an integral part of our Nation’s constitutional structure. In cases such as National League of Cities v. Usery in 

1976 through U.S. v. Lopez in 1995, his opinions aimed to 

protect the role of the States within the Federal system by 

recognizing that our government is one of enumerated rights 

and dual sovereignty. 

Though a strong and vigorous advocate for his beliefs, 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST was always respectful of his colleagues and committed to the rule of law, never allowing politics or infighting to threaten his Court. All of us in the Senate got to know Chief Justice REHNQUIST when he presided 

over the impeachment trial of President William Clinton. He 

was a decisive, but not intrusive arbiter. His insightful observations about the operation of the Senate were both serious and humorous. A profound defender of the Constitution 

and a staunch protector of liberty, Chief Justice REHNQUIST

has left behind a legacy of thoughtfulness and quiet intellect, 

and will be remembered as one of our Nation’s greatest judicial leaders. 

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I was sad to hear of Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s passing, but I want to share my gratitude 

for his service. He exceeded all but seven Justices by the 

length of his 33 years on the Supreme Court Bench. President Nixon nominated him to be the 100th Supreme Court 

Justice in 1971. Fourteen years later, President Reagan 

nominated him to serve as Chief Justice. In his tenure as 

Chief Justice, he oversaw benchmark cases and events that 

helped to shape the Supreme Court and the country as we 

know it today. His efficient management of the Court and 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 30 ] 

careful interpretation of the Constitution provide a good example for future Chief Justices. 

He was a very learned man, interested in a wide range of 

topics and pleasant to be around. In 1952, he graduated first 

in his law school class at Stanford. In addition to his law degree, he held master’s degrees in political science from Stanford and Harvard. 

He left law school and moved to Washington, DC, to clerk 

at the Supreme Court, a place where he would eventually 

spend over a third of his life. 

At times our lives intersected. During the impeachment 

trial of President Clinton, I presided on the Senate floor just 

before Chief Justice REHNQUIST took the presiding officer’s 

chair—and then I took over each day as he left the chair. I 

also presided when he was escorted out of the Chamber following the end of the trial. I enjoyed reading his book about 

civil liberties in wartime and his book about the history of 

impeachments, which I was fortunate enough to get him to 

sign for me. 

Now in the wake of his death and one of the worst natural 

disasters in U.S. history, the Senate will soon move to fill 

the vacancies on the Court. People are going through some 

hard times in our country. Chief Justice REHNQUIST knew 

about hard times. 

He returned to the bench after being diagnosed and treated for cancer. He fought bravely to finish his job and 

spurned the rumors of retirement this summer. He stated 

that he would continue as long as his health permits. And 

he did. I admire him for it. 

We also must continue to do our job by holding hearings 

and then voting on the President’s nominees to the court. If 

we keep the political posturing to a minimum, we should 

have plenty of time to fill the spot of the man who held it 

for so long and so well. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today we mourn Chief 

Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, who faithfully served the 

Supreme Court and our Nation for 33 years—19 of them as 

Chief Justice. That tenure made him the fourth longest serving Chief Justice in the history of our Nation, surpassed only 

by Chief Justices Melville Weston Fuller, Roger B. Taney, 

and John Marshall. He was also the fifth longest serving 

Justice in our history. Walter Dellinger, former acting Solicitor General in the Clinton administration, has suggested 

that Chief Justice REHNQUIST will be judged by history as 

one of the three most influential Chief Justices, together 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 31 ] 

with Marshall and Chief Justice Earl Warren. We have truly 

lost a historic figure. 

It is with pride, then, that we in Wisconsin claim Chief 

Justice REHNQUIST as a native son. He was born in our 

State, and Wisconsin was his first home. He grew up in 

Shorewood, a suburb of Milwaukee, and graduated from 

Shorewood High School in 1942. Wisconsin must have provided a good foundation for his future; he went on to graduate first in his class from Stanford Law School and to clerk 

for former Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, another of the great jurists of the 20th century. 

I have deep respect for this son of Wisconsin, although I 

did not always agree with his substantive legal views. Indeed, we are hearing praise for Chief Justice REHNQUIST

from across the political and legal spectrum. To be admired 

and respected despite philosophical differences is one of the 

marks of a truly great man. 

Justice John Paul Stevens, perhaps REHNQUIST’s most 

ideologically distant colleague on the current Court, paid 

tribute to him on behalf of the entire Court on the occasion 

of Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s 30th anniversary on the bench. 

Justice Stevens praised him for his efficiency, good humor, 

and absolute impartiality when presiding over Court conferences. That Chief Justice REHNQUIST possessed sufficient 

intellectual strength and personal skill to preside over discussions among nine of the finest legal minds in the Nation 

and to earn their respect is no small feat, particularly considering the difficulties and dissension that have marked discussions and conferences in other eras. All acknowledge that 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST was a devoted and skilled Court 

administrator, not just for his own highest court but also in 

his role as guardian of our entire third branch of government, the Federal judiciary. 

In addition to his accomplishments on the Court, Chief 

Justice REHNQUIST deserves our greatest respect for the dignity and fortitude with which he conducted himself in the 

last year. Despite the fact that he was clearly suffering from 

a serious illness, he continued to serve the public and the 

Court. He was an inspiration to all who encounter physical 

obstacles in carrying out their duties, to all who face the 

challenges of illness or disability but still want to contribute 

to their country or their communities. 

History will judge whether Chief Justice REHNQUIST led 

the Court in a direction that was good for the country. For 

now, it is appropriate to recognize his intellect and his servVerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 32 ] 

ice. I have deep respect for Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s integrity, his personal fortitude and his devotion to the Court and 

the entire judicial branch. Wisconsin will miss our distinguished son. 

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the late 

Chief Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST. The Chief Justice 

leaves behind a legacy as one of the longest serving and most 

influential members of America’s highest court. America is a 

better and stronger nation because of his distinguished service on the U.S. Supreme Court. 

As many from his generation did, Chief Justice REHNQUIST

served in the military during World War II. He relied on the 

GI bill to attend college after the war and graduated from 

Stanford Law School at the top of his class. In 1951 and 

1952, Justice REHNQUIST served as a U.S. Supreme Court 

law clerk to Justice Robert Jackson, and then went on to a 

distinguished career in private legal practice. 

In 1971, President Nixon nominated REHNQUIST to replace 

John Marshall Harlan on the Supreme Court, beginning one 

of the longest terms of service in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan nominated 

Justice REHNQUIST to be Chief Justice. He served in that capacity for over 18 years. 

Only 16 individuals have served as Chief Justice of the 

United States. Legal scholars identify periods of evolution in 

American jurisprudence by the name of the Chief Justice 

presiding during each era. The Rehnquist court will go down 

in American history as one of the most important. 

As an Associate Justice, REHNQUIST began coaxing the 

Court back into the role our Founders envisioned. As Chief 

Justice, REHNQUIST continued to gradually pull the Court 

away from promoting particular social policies and back toward the principles of federalism enshrined in our Constitution. By the time he was through, REHNQUIST had patiently 

helped reshape the relationships between our branches of 

government and the States. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST deserves enormous credit for returning the Court to its role of analyzing and interpreting 

the Constitution and our laws. History will judge Chief Justice REHNQUIST well for the way in which he shaped and 

guided the Supreme Court during his service to our Nation. 

America will miss him. 

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to 

one of the greatest legal minds of our day: Chief Justice WILVerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 33 ] 

LIAM HUBBS REHNQUIST, who passed away late Saturday 

night. His death is a tremendous loss to our entire Nation. 

I join my fellow Americans in both mourning his passing and 

honoring his profound contribution to our country. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST faithfully served the American 

people on their Supreme Court for 33 years. Without question, our country owes him a debt of great gratitude. 

The individual who occupies the center seat on the Supreme Court is not the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 

but the Chief Justice of the United States—the one person 

who embodies our national commitment to constitutional democracy and to the rule of law. Throughout his life, WILLIAM

HUBBS REHNQUIST revered the Supreme Court and the rule 

of law as few people have—not only as our Nation’s Chief 

Justice for 19 years, as Associate Justice for 14 years, and 

as a High Court law clerk, but also a student and a scholar 

of the Supreme Court. REHNQUIST has written numerous 

books on legal history and the Supreme Court—including: 

‘‘The Supreme Court: How It Was, How It Is’’; ‘‘Grand Inquests: The Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase 

and President Andrew Johnson’’; ‘‘All the Laws But One: 

Civil Liberties in Wartime’’; and ‘‘Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 1876.’’

WILLIAM HUBBS REHNQUIST was born October 1, 1924, in 

Milwaukee, WI. He entered the U.S. Army Air Force and 

served in World War II from 1943 to 1946. REHNQUIST obtained his undergraduate degree from Stanford University 

and two master’s degrees from Stanford and Harvard Universities. He received his law degree from Stanford, graduating first in his class. REHNQUIST served as a law clerk for 

Justice Robert H. Jackson, then practiced law in Phoenix, 

AZ. President Richard Nixon appointed REHNQUIST to serve, 

first as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of 

Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, and then 

as Associate Justice in 1972. President Ronald Reagan nominated him as Chief Justice in 1986. 

The Supreme Court enjoyed renewed admiration under 

REHNQUIST’s leadership. Guided by REHNQUIST’s steady 

hand, the U.S. Senate weathered one of the most difficult 

and controversial moments in our Nation’s modern history—

the impeachment trial of a sitting U.S. President. 

REHNQUIST believed that the best judiciary was a restrained judiciary—one that would adhere to the letter of the 

law—not to the personal policy preferences of its members. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 34 ] 

Two areas in particular stand out in my mind as perhaps the 

most lasting examples of this legacy. 

The Rehnquist court may perhaps best be remembered for 

the restoration of common sense to our criminal justice system. Many Americans perhaps do not remember the days of 

the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren. The 16 

years under Warren, from 1953 to 1969, were nothing short 

of a heyday for criminals in America. Many Americans probably are familiar with the notion of letting a criminal off on 

the basis of a ‘‘technicality.’’ This notion originated in the 

years of the Warren court. The Supreme Court let countless 

criminals go free because police officers did not say precisely 

what the Court wanted them to say when they arrested 

criminals, or because warrants did not say precisely what 

the Court wanted them to say when the police searched 

criminals. It is no exaggeration to assert that, at that time, 

the rights of criminals were placed before the rights of victims—not to mention before the well-being of society in general. 

This period ended when President Reagan elevated WILLIAM REHNQUIST to Chief Justice. Chief Justice REHNQUIST

did his level best to return our Constitution to its original 

understanding, an understanding that gives law enforcement 

officials the freedom they need to protect society from criminals. Over the last decade, we have witnessed a historic decline in violent crime all across America. This is due, in no 

small part, to the efforts of Chief Justice REHNQUIST. 

The second area, one equally, if not more important than 

the first, was the effort to restore the Federal-State partnership known as ‘‘federalism’’ envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Our Founding Fathers believed that States and the 

Federal Government should be equal partners. Indeed, it 

was the view of our Founding Fathers that the Federal Government should have limited and enumerated powers, and, 

in fact, the primary authority to legislate should be left to 

State governments. I know this might come as a surprise to 

some, but not all wisdom emanates from Washington, DC. 

State governments, after all, are closer to the people than 

the Federal Government is. Our Founding Fathers realized 

this fact. 

Unfortunately, many Supreme Court Justices did not. 

Over the years, many of these Justices had interpreted the 

Constitution to give the Federal Government unlimited powers. These Justices characterized everything the Federal 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 35 ] 

Government wanted to do as a regulation of ‘‘interstate commerce.’’

This was a fiction, of course, but over the years the Federal Government grew bigger and more powerful, the State 

governments grew smaller and less powerful, and the American people became less free. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST did his part to stem this tide. He 

tried to stand for our Constitution and the founding vision 

that not everything should be left to the Federal Government. Although this project is still unfinished, Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST made impressive strides, and there is no question that our Nation is better off today for his efforts. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s passing also reminds us that 

Supreme Court Justices are, after all, human beings—and 

that they should be treated with civility and respect, not as 

political pawns. Thus, perhaps the best way that we in the 

Senate might pay tribute to Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s legacy is to put partisanship aside in the judicial confirmation 

process. 

President Bush has now fittingly nominated one of 

REHNQUIST’s former law clerks, Judge John Roberts, to replace him as Chief Justice. We should do the right thing by 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST and vote on Judge Roberts’ nomination as expeditiously as possible—and without some of the 

political posturing that has greeted other well-qualified 

nominees. 

My thoughts and prayers are with Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST’s family. The Nation suffered a profound loss on 

Saturday night. I am confident, however, that we in the Senate will do our part to proceed in a manner that honors the 

memory of our late Chief Justice and in a manner that 

would make him proud. 

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the death of WILLIAM HUBBS

REHNQUIST leaves us saddened but also grateful for his more 

than three decades of service to his country as a Justice of 

the U.S. Supreme Court, including 19 years as its Chief Justice. 

I first met Chief Justice REHNQUIST when he was a lawyer 

in Phoenix. He spent most of the 1950s and 1960s practicing 

law in our State, and raising a family there with his wife, 

Natalie, who passed away in 1991. He made an annual return to Arizona from 1994 until last year, to teach a course 

on Supreme Court history at the University of Arizona College of Law, my alma mater. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 36 ] 

Appointed to his seat by President Nixon in 1972, and elevated to Chief Justice by President Reagan in 1986, he provided steady leadership at the Court through turbulent decades. He showed that one man of integrity really can make 

a difference. 

He was a conservative whose philosophy did not always 

carry the day, especially in his early years on the Court. 

More recently, there has been greater acceptance of his notion of balance between the authority of States and the Federal Government. His decisions helped prevent the rights of 

criminal suspects from being overemphasized to the point 

that law enforcement was hampered in doing its job. They 

curbed the government’s use of racial quotas, deemed by 

most Americans to be a squandering of the moral authority 

of the civil rights movement. They reaffirmed the religious 

freedom clause of the first amendment. They upheld restrictions on the practice of abortion, again in keeping with the 

views of most Americans. 

On a personal level, WILLIAM REHNQUIST had a quick, dry 

wit and a manner that was warm and courteous. He was a 

straight shooter, devoid of pretentiousness, yet deeply 

learned in the law and many other things. The legacy he 

leaves includes the histories he wrote, namely his four books 

on the Court and the American legal system: ‘‘The Supreme 

Court: How It Was, How It Is,’’ 1987; ‘‘Grand Inquests: The 

Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson,’’ 1992; ‘‘All the Laws But One: Civil 

Liberties in Wartime,’’ 1998; and ‘‘Centennial Crisis: The 

Disputed Election of 1876,’’ 2004. 

Notice those titles. We had, during his tenure as Chief 

Justice, a Presidential impeachment—over which he presided with a dignity and good sense that were reassuring to 

all, in and out of the Senate Chamber. We had a disputed 

election—in which he led the Court in delivering the U.S. 

Government and the country from a nightmare of litigation 

and partisan combat. 

His death has left mourners even among those who disagreed with him. The liberal law professor Laurence H. 

Tribe offered words of praise for his brilliance, his honesty, 

and his calm leadership. He called Chief Justice REHNQUIST

‘‘a master’’ at enabling the Court to ‘‘earn the respect of all 

who take part in its proceedings or are affected by its rulings.’’ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said he ‘‘was the fairest, 

most efficient boss I have ever had.’’

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 37 ] 

The admiration he inspired in people all across the political spectrum is due also to the superb job he did as the Federal judiciary’s top administrator, which is part of the role of 

Chief Justice. He staunchly asserted the independence of the 

Federal court system and fought to see that those who 

worked in it were adequately compensated. 

WILLIAM REHNQUIST loved his family; he loved the law; he 

loved America and its history; and he loved the Supreme 

Court as an institution. The courage and tenacity he showed, 

despite suffering from thyroid cancer, were typical of him. 

He presided over oral arguments in the spring and continued 

his work on that group of cases until just last month. 

It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial, and 

independent as the lot of humanity will admit. 

So said the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which influenced the writing of the U.S. Constitution. WILLIAM

REHNQUIST was a free, impartial, and independent judge. 

His combination of strong-mindedness and meticulous fairness made him perfect for the position he held. He makes 

Americans, and especially Arizonans, very proud. We mourn 

his loss. 

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, while the Nation’s attention 

is rightly focused on the ongoing tragedy in the South, I 

would also like to say a few words about the passing of a 

great American. After a long and extraordinary life, WILLIAM

REHNQUIST died this past weekend. The 16th Chief Justice 

of the United States leaves us with an unmatched legacy of 

service to our Nation. 

Born 80 years ago in Milwaukee, WI, WILLIAM REHNQUIST

lived a truly remarkable life. Like many in his generation, 

he served in World War II and was stationed in North Africa. With the support of scholarship money from the GI bill, 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST attended college at Stanford University. He then went on to earn his law degree from Stanford Law School. At law school, the Chief Justice began to 

establish his reputation as a brilliant legal thinker and an 

able scholar. He graduated at the top of his class, just ahead 

of Sandra Day O’Connor. 

After clerking for Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, 

REHNQUIST married his late wife Natalie Cornell and moved 

to Phoenix, AZ. There, Chief Justice REHNQUIST and Nan 

raised their three children—James, Janet, and Nancy—while 

he built a long career as one of Arizona’s leading attorneys. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 38 ] 

In 1969, Chief Justice REHNQUIST became a public servant 

as an Assistant U.S. Attorney General. Two years later, he 

was nominated by President Nixon to the Supreme Court. 

After being confirmed by the Senate, he took his seat as an 

Associate Justice of the Court—at 47, he was the Court’s 

youngest member. In 1986, President Reagan nominated and 

the Senate confirmed Justice REHNQUIST as the Chief Justice 

of the United States. 

During his 33 years on the Court, Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST gained respect for his sharp intellect, his strong 

sense of fairness, and his profound devotion to the Court and 

to public service. 

The Chief Justice’s extraordinary legal career was surpassed only by the courage that he showed in his final year 

of life. During that time, he battled bravely against thyroid 

cancer. Through radiation and chemotherapy treatments, he 

continued to serve on the Court and stated that he would 

continue to perform his duties as Chief Justice as long as his 

health permitted. He did just that, with the dignity and 

dedication that characterized his tenure on the Court. 

WILLIAM REHNQUIST truly was first among equals. May he 

rest in peace. 

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I speak in honor of 

Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST. The Chief Justice served 

this Nation’s highest court with distinction and honor for 

more than three decades, and his career in public service 

started years earlier. Even as he battled cancer over the past 

year, he continued to be an example of personal strength, 

dignity, and fortitude. I join my colleagues in mourning his 

passing and offering my prayers to his family. 

The Chief Justice was a staunch defender of the Supreme 

Court and an active, independent judiciary. He was admired 

as a warm and helpful colleague, a thoughtful mentor, and 

an extremely effective administrator of the Federal court system. The courts were well cared for under his distinguished 

leadership. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST also engaged directly with many 

of the toughest constitutional controversies of the 20th century. Although I often disagreed with his decisions, Chief 

Justice REHNQUIST’s opinions have been the source of important scholarship and litigation. Like the Chief Justice he followed, the late Earl Warren, Chief Justice REHNQUIST will 

be remembered as an important historical figure whose legacy will impact generations of Americans. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 39 ] 

I knew the Chief Justice only at a distance. As a lawyer 

and a constitutional law instructor, I was required to wrestle 

intellectually with his ideas and arguments, and to press my 

students to divine his judicial instincts and motivations. My 

regret is that I never got to know him personally, or even to 

join one of his legendary walks around the Capitol or monthly poker games. I know that his warmth and humor have 

touched many of my colleagues, and he will be missed. 

Of course the strength of our constitutional structure is 

that it is greater than any individual. Each of us plays but 

a small role in designing or building or repairing that structure. It is greater and more important than any of us. We 

mourn the passing of Chief Justice REHNQUIST and now look 

to the future and the important work to be done. 

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Chief 

Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST, who was a brilliant jurist, a devoted public servant, and a person who shared my love of 

Vermont. 

Though most Americans knew Chief Justice REHNQUIST

for his years of service on the Supreme Court, many 

Vermonters knew him as a neighbor and a friend. Like most 

who visit our great State, Chief Justice REHNQUIST fell in 

love with Vermont’s natural beauty and rural character and 

purchased a home in Greensboro in 1974. 

For over 30 years, Chief Justice REHNQUIST escaped the 

humidity and stress of Washington every summer in favor of 

the picturesque surroundings and quiet charm of Caspian 

Lake. Whether it was playing cards, visiting Willey’s Store, 

or worshipping at the Greensboro United Church of Christ, 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST immersed himself in the community with a remarkable subtlety and modesty for a man of 

his stature and prominence. The Chief Justice would also 

share his knowledge of history, politics, and the law with 

community members in a lecture that became a much anticipated summer tradition in Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom. 

Each year, before the State of the Union, I would usually 

have a chance to chat with the Chief Justice about his time 

in Vermont. Amidst the chaos and cameras of the Capitol on 

such a busy night, Chief Justice REHNQUIST always found 

time to reminisce about the summer months he spent in our 

State. I always enjoyed these brief discussions with such a 

kind and engaging man who valued life’s simple pleasures so 

dearly. 

On September 5, the Burlington Free Press, describing the 

reaction in Greensboro to the Chief Justice’s passing, wrote: 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 40 ] 

It wasn’t a dignitary that was mourned; it was a guy who liked to walk 

everywhere and call people by their first names (and expected them to return the favor). It was a guy who had an affinity for Hershey’s Special Dark 

Chocolate bars and Donna Gerow’s homemade pumpkin bread. 

As millions of Americans mourn the loss of one of the most 

influential people of our time, Vermonters in Greensboro, 

and around Caspian Lake, mourn a good neighbor, a great 

friend, and a fellow Vermonter. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the 

Senate will proceed to a vote on the resolution honoring the 

life of Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST, which the clerk 

will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: 

A resolution (S. Res. 234), relative to the death of WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, 

Chief Justice of the United States. 

The result was announced—yeas 95, nays 0. 

The resolution (S. Res. 234) was agreed to. 

The preamble was agreed to. 

The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows: 

S. RES. 234 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, the late Chief Justice of the United 

States, was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to William Benjamin Rehnquist 

and Margery Peck Rehnquist and raised in Shorewood, Wisconsin; 

Whereas a young WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST served our Nation during the 

Second World War in the United States Army Air Force at home and abroad 

from 1943 to 1946; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST enrolled in Stanford University, where 

he earned a bachelor’s and master’s degree in political science and was 

elected to Phi Beta Kappa; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST earned a second master’s degree in government from Harvard University; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST graduated first in a very impressive 

class, including his future Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor, 

from Stanford University’s School of Law; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST began his legal career by serving as a 

law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST married the late Natalie Cornell, and 

they raised 3 children, James, Janet, and Nancy; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST was an accomplished attorney, having 

practiced law for 16 years in Phoenix, Arizona; 

Whereas President Richard Nixon selected WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST to 

serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel of the 

Department of Justice; 

Whereas President Richard Nixon also nominated WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States; 

Whereas President Ronald Reagan nominated WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST to 

serve as the sixteenth Chief Justice of the United States; 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 41 ] 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST had a profound love for history and respect for the arts and served as Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution 

for 19 years; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST was a skilled writer and avid historian 

and authored several books on Supreme Court history and the American 

legal system; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST was a man of enormous intellect and 

great common sense, a combination that was reflected in the clarity of his 

opinions; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST’s record illustrates his unwavering commitment to judicial restraint, judicial independence, and the rule of law; 

Whereas, under his firm leadership and superb managerial skills, WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST efficiently managed the Supreme Court of the United 

States for 19 years; 

Whereas leaders of both political parties agree that WILLIAM H. 

REHNQUIST served with honor and integrity in his role as the second Chief 

Justice of the United States to preside over a presidential impeachment 

trial, respecting the institutional domain of the Senate and its processes, 

procedures, and traditions; 

Whereas, as the leader of the Supreme Court, WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST was 

highly regarded by all of his colleagues, including those with differing judicial philosophies; 

Whereas his former colleagues have described WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST as 

a ‘‘splendid administrator’’, ‘‘the most efficient manager’’, ‘‘a great Chief Justice’’, ‘‘meticulously fair’’, and the ‘‘most all-around successful’’ Chief Justice; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST served with distinction on the Supreme 

Court of the United States for over 14 years as an Associate Justice and 19 

years as the Chief Justice, more than 33 years in all; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST was the fourth longest serving Chief 

Justice of the United States; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST was 1 of our Nation’s most influential 

and memorable Chief Justices; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST was the embodiment of the ideal qualities of a judge, fair, impartial, open minded, and above all committed to the 

Constitution and the rule of law; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST will be remembered as 1 of the greatest 

Chief Justices of the United States; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST passed away on September 3, 2005, surrounded by his loving family; and 

Whereas our Nation is deeply indebted to WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, a truly 

distinguished American: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the Senate—

(1) extends its heartfelt sympathy to the family and friends of WILLIAM

H. REHNQUIST; 

(2) acknowledges WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST’s life-long service to the United 

States of America as a World War II veteran, a talented attorney, a dedicated public servant, a brilliant jurist, and one of our Nation’s greatest 

Chief Justices; and 

(3) commends WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST for his 33 year tenure on the Supreme Court of the United States and his many accomplishments as Chief 

Justice of the United States. 

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the time until 1:30 

be equally divided, and at 1:30 the Senate stand in recess 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 42 ] 

until 3:30 today as a further mark of respect to Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST, provided further that when the Senate reconvenes at 3:30 there be a period for morning business with 

Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to take the next 

10 minutes to talk about a couple of different items. 

Not far from where we are today, the body of our late 

Chief Justice has lain in repose, and a number of us were 

privileged to go there earlier today just to say goodbye and 

to thank him for his service to our country—33 years. That 

is a long time, more than three decades that he has served 

us. His love for our country, his love for the law and the integrity of our Nation’s judiciary system was only surpassed 

by his love for his family and for those with whom he 

worked. 

During his time on the Court, he fostered, among other 

things, real congeniality among the Justices—something that 

is not easy to do in that forum or, frankly, in this one. In 

return, he was held in high esteem by his colleagues who 

had called him, among other things, ‘‘brilliant,’’ ‘‘principled,’’

‘‘generous,’’ with ‘‘a good sense of humor,’’ something we can 

never have too much of. 

He demonstrated great personal strength and courage in 

leading the Court and this country through difficult and contentious times, continuing his work in the face of everdaunting health problems that would have set most of us on 

our backs and far out of the courtroom. 

There are many judicial hallmarks of his time on the 

Court. Throughout his tenure on the Court, he staunchly 

supported the independence of the Federal judiciary and our 

overall governmental system of checks and balances. We will 

miss him, but we are grateful that he was here to serve us 

for as long as he has. 

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to speak for three very important reasons. Of course, 

first is to recognize our Chief Justice who has just passed, 

WILLIAM REHNQUIST. 

Today the Senate paid its respects to the late Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST, filing through the halls of the Supreme Court 

where he served this Nation with distinction for more than 

33 years. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 43 ] 

I could not help but remember a conversation I had with 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST a couple of years ago. I was walking to work and happened to run into him on one of his legendary strolls around the Court. We talked a bit about what 

was happening in the judicial nomination process in the Senate. But the specifics of that conversation are probably less 

important than the style of the conversation. He was informal, approachable, genteel, but certainly direct. And regardless of his physical frailty, he had lost none of his interest 

or his ability to give a shrewd analysis of the events of the 

day. If you spent any time at all with this very important 

man, you would feel the force of his great personality. 

Much has already been written about the legal legacy of 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST because he was one of the most influential jurists of our time. He anchored and presided over 

a shift to conservative principles, underscoring in particular 

the importance of federalism and limitations on government. 

I know some in the conservative community were disappointed that the Supreme Court, on his watch, did not reverse more prior left-leaning precedents, but his strong hand 

was certainly obvious in a long series of history-making decisions. WILLIAM REHNQUIST’s impact on jurisprudence was 

profound and will be felt for many years to come. 

In his personal life, I know this engaging man had many 

friends, and to all of them, as well as his family, I extend 

my deepest condolences. The Court has lost a brilliant and 

fair leader. America has lost a great public servant. I consider myself fortunate to have had the chance to know and 

be inspired by WILLIAM REHNQUIST. 

I thank the leader for this opportunity to add one more 

voice to the chorus of tributes from a grateful Nation. 

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to join with all my colleagues and with America in expressing our condolences to 

the Rehnquist family and, obviously, our great appreciation 

for his extraordinary service to this Nation. I hope at a later 

date to put in a more extensive statement. He was a man 

whose commitment to the law was exceptional, but his commitment to the country was even higher. We are very fortunate to have had him as our Chief Justice and as a Justice 

on the Supreme Court for so long. 

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to 

WILLIAM REHNQUIST, 16th Chief Justice of the United 

States. That is the title, Chief Justice of the United States. 

While the ceremony honoring him goes forward I think it is 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 44 ] 

appropriate that we in this body recognize his incredible 

service to the Nation. His biography, where he came from 

and what he did, has been spoken of a great deal. What I 

wanted to speak about is not only that, but also his personal 

impact on me, one that he wouldn’t have known or known 

about. 

As a young law student in the early 1980s at the University of Kansas, I can remember studying constitutional law 

and other areas where his opinions came forth. Frequently 

in those days he was in the minority opinion role. 

Many of my law school professors would say: Can you believe what this guy wrote? I remember reading his opinions 

and thinking his opinion seemed very logical. It seems to me 

he believed in holding with the great traditions of being a 

Nation of the rule of law, not the rule of man. The Constitution is a textural document. Chief Justice REHNQUIST had a 

big impact on me in his writings and what he believed we 

stood for as a nation. He has had a big impact on this Nation, and he will be sorely missed. 

He was genteel in all of his dealings. Even when he presided in the Senate over the impeachment trial for President 

Clinton, he did so in a very stately, gentle fashion. Just his 

presence was one of a man at peace with himself, who knew 

what he was about, and knew his role and his duty. He fulfilled his duty to the best of his abilities as Chief Justice, Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, as presiding over an 

impeachment trial, and working with clerks. 

I think one of the most telling things for an individual is 

what the people say who worked for you, and particularly 

those who worked for you perhaps in a lower capacity. It 

seems unanimous that the clerks for Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST admired the man while they worked for him. It 

is a tribute to him how well they worked together and how 

he helped form them. There is a great symmetry about this 

in John Roberts being nominated now, as a former clerk of 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST, and now nominated to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by his former boss. John 

Roberts is an outstanding nomination to the Chief Justice 

position. I hope we can move forward in an expeditious fashion, certainly thorough, but in an expeditious fashion. 

That is not what we are here today to talk about. Today 

it is to talk about and to reflect upon an amazing American 

in WILLIAM REHNQUIST. He grew up in the suburbs of Milwaukee, WI. His father was the son of Swedish immigrants, 

and worked as a paper salesman. His mother was a multiVerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 45 ] 

lingual professional translator. Shortly after graduation from 

high school, Chief Justice REHNQUIST enlisted in the Air 

Force and during World War II served as a weather observer 

in North Africa. On completion of his service in the Air 

Force, the Chief Justice began his undergraduate work at 

Stanford University. Yes, he did it on the GI bill. 

In 1952, REHNQUIST graduated first in his class from Stanford Law School, certainly a monumental accomplishment, 

an accomplishment of great discipline. Following law school, 

he clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. 

In 1953, he began work at a law firm in Phoenix, and his 

brilliance was noted by the Nixon Deputy Attorney General 

at that time, Richard Kleindienst. On October 22, 1971, 

President Richard Nixon nominated him to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. He was confirmed less 

than 2 months later, which would be record speed for this 

body by today’s standard. 

During his time on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST has defended the original text of the Constitution. To a number of people that may seem like a simple 

task. After all, it is the Constitution. It is the basic law of 

the land. What is there to defend? The law speaks for itself. 

It is a set of plain words on a clear document that has such 

a significant historical place in our hearts and minds. Yet he 

comes along on a Court at a point in time when a number 

of people are saying: It is a living document, it can move 

with the culture, and we can interpret the words more 

broadly. We can interpret it not by what it says, but by what 

we would like it to say. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST fought against that and fought 

for the original text of the Constitution and said it is as it 

is. This is a textural document. If we want to change it, that 

is fine, but it is changed by two-thirds of the House and twothirds of the Senate and three-fourths of the States, not by 

five people on the Court. Those are not his words, but they 

are the principles he stood for. 

The role of a Justice on the Supreme Court is to look at 

the plain meaning and the original text of the Constitution, 

not at your own cultural bias of the moment and what you 

believe America may need and therefore may be willing to 

move to. 

The problem with a living document is that you don’t have 

the rule of law. You are more of a rule of man. So he defended this proposition of the original text of the Constitution, the intent of the Framers. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 46 ] 

Certainly he was a promoter of life. It was in the 1973 dissent in Roe v. Wade that then-Associate Justice REHNQUIST

wrote: 

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope 

of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. 

These are Associate Justice REHNQUIST’s words. In his 

early years of lonely dissents in cases like Roe, REHNQUIST

made his mark by standing for constitutional principle over 

the political preferences of an unelected judiciary. With the 

retirement of Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1986, President Reagan then elevated Associate Justice REHNQUIST to 

the Court’s top post where he served with distinction until 

his death. 

The last 19 years have shown that Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST was a terrific choice to lead the Supreme Court. 

He authored countless landmark decisions and thoughtprovoking dissents. In carefully reasoned opinions, he insisted that the principle of federalism is an integral part of 

our Nation’s constitutional structure. He recognized that our 

government is one of enumerated rights and dual sovereignty, with certain functions and powers properly left to 

the States. 

One example of Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s commitment to 

the laws is his opinion in Dickerson v. United States. Although a long-time critic of Miranda v. Arizona, REHNQUIST

nevertheless placed his past position aside and wrote the 

opinion in Dickerson, effectively affirming the holding of Miranda. He served well. He served nobly, and he served with 

courage. I might note that even during his recent sickness, 

he found the strength to do his duty and to serve in office. 

He found the strength to administer the oath of office to 

President Bush, to consider the challenging cases that came 

before the Court. 

Peggy Noonan wrote of President Bush’s inauguration: 

[T]he most poignant moment was the manful WILLIAM REHNQUIST, unable 

to wear a tie and making his way down the long marble steps to swear in 

the president. The continuation of democracy is made possible by such gallantry. 

While some of his colleagues on the Court disagreed with 

him at times, there can be no doubt that they admired his 

strong leadership, his likable personality, and his ability to 

build consensus. That is the noteworthy quality of a gentleman. He served with distinction. He served us well. He 

carried his course out, and he is now at rest. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 47 ] 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did 

not take a moment to say what a great loss our country has 

experienced with the passing of our Chief Justice WILLIAM

REHNQUIST. WILLIAM REHNQUIST was a man of deep integrity and honor, a true public servant. He served our country 

well, always keeping an eye toward tradition and working to 

bring constitutional reason to the complex questions of our 

Nation. Our country is better for the guiding hand he placed 

on the Court. His resolute spirit will be missed. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s leadership brought the Court 

through three decades of very tumultuous times. September 

17 of this year would mark the 19th year of his tenure as 

Chief Justice. 

He led the judiciary with resolve and a steady hand. He 

will be greatly missed by his family, his colleagues, the 

Court, and by a grateful Nation. 

As we turn our attention in the coming weeks to the confirmation process to consider the President’s nominee to 

serve as the next Chief Justice, it would be appropriate to 

pause and reflect on the service to our country provided by 

this man of exceptional intellect who served his Nation long 

and faithfully. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. 

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, the 

distinguished Senator from Florida, in expressing my personal condolences and those of my fellow Minnesotans to the 

family and friends of the former Chief Justice, and I share 

the sentiments in regard to his distinguished service to our 

Nation. 

THURSDAY, September 8, 2005 

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE 

At 12:08 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mr. Croatt, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has agreed to the following resolution: 

H. Res. 422. Resolution expressing the profound sorrow of the House of 

Representatives on the death of the Honorable WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, 

Chief Justice of the United States. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 48 ] 

The message also announced that the House has agreed to 

the following concurrent resolution, without amendment: 

S. Con. Res. 52. Concurrent resolution providing for the use of the catafalque situated in the crypt beneath the Rotunda of the Capitol in connection with memorial services to be conducted in the Supreme Court Building 

for the late honorable WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, Chief Justice of the United 

States. 

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 

Senators be permitted to submit tributes to Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST for the Record until September 30, 2005, and 

that all tributes be printed as a Senate document. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

FRIDAY, September 9, 2005 

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the people of 

Minnesota I have taken the floor today to express our condolences to the Rehnquist family for their loss and gratitude 

and admiration for his extraordinary life of service. 

The Midwest, where WILLIAM REHNQUIST was born, does 

not have the high mountains or the pounding ocean surf of 

other parts of the country. We learn from our geography the 

value of moderation and dependability. WILLIAM REHNQUIST

was a solid human being whose consistency and resolve as 

a member of the Supreme Court benefited the whole country 

in turbulent times. 

The historian Whitehead has written that the essence of 

leadership is maintaining order in the midst of change, and 

change in the midst of order. WILLIAM REHNQUIST lived out 

the principle that both change and order are necessary in the 

law and he knew when we needed each. 

Chief Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST served America with 

great distinction on the Supreme Court for 33 years. His profound respect for the Constitution and his collegial relationships throughout the judiciary will be a standard for future 

Justices. He knew that his role was more than deciding 

cases: it was to raise the knowledge of and respect for the 

rule of law. 

Mr. REHNQUIST took his seat as an Associate Supreme 

Court Justice in 1972 after being appointed by President 

Richard Nixon, and became Chief Justice in 1986, during the 

Reagan administration. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 49 ] 

His opinions reflected a staunch adherence to the constitutional principle of States rights. He also displayed an 

untiring willingness to work with his colleagues to find a 

compromise without minimizing his position. Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST will be remembered as one of our most influential Chief Justices in history. 

As the Court’s most junior Justice, REHNQUIST made State 

sovereignty his central principle of American constitutional 

law. At times, especially in those early years in 1973, he 

stood alone in his support of State sovereignty but continued 

this fight to the end of his time on the bench. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST succeeded in shifting the balance 

of power between States and the Federal Government. The 

control and limitation of Federal control will always be a legacy of Chief Justice REHNQUIST. He protected the Constitution in his application of the law and took great pride in his 

protection of civil liberties and the importance of freedom 

and the democratic spirit in our Constitution. 

As Chief Justice, Mr. REHNQUIST made his mark on the 

Court with grace in an environment where Justices of varying opinions could express themselves free from personal attacks and/or ideological stalemates. His was a Court of 

strong personalities who operated in profound respect for 

each other and the country gained from their wisdom and 

discourse. He was a great leader and effective administrator 

of the Supreme Court. 

I was personally touched by Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s determination and heroic passion to serve while battling cancer. As we often hear, we are a government of law and not 

men and women, and that is true. But our constitutional 

principles are not self-enforcing. We depend on men and 

women of good hearts and sharp minds to steer us through 

difficult moments when the issues of the day collide with our 

Constitution of over 200 years of age. 

He was to the end a midwesterner: strong, reliable and devoted to the idea of leaving things better than he found 

them. The whole Nation, and future generations of Americans should be deeply grateful for the legacy he has left. 

MONDAY, September 12, 2005 

Mrs. MURRAY. . . . Last week, this Chamber mourned the 

passing of Chief Justice REHNQUIST who served on our Nation’s highest court for over three decades. The great range 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 50 ] 

of issues on which the Supreme Court ruled during Justice 

REHNQUIST’s tenure—from Roe v. Wade to capital punishment to Miranda rights to the conclusion of a Presidential 

election—shows the American public just how closely the 

Court touches each of our daily lives. My home State of 

Washington is 3,000 miles away from the Nation’s Capital, 

but the issues the Supreme Court takes up, whether it be 

title IX or eminent domain or a woman’s right to choose, hits 

home for them as well. 

WEDNESDAY, September 14, 2005 

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I join in acknowledging the 

life and service of Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST. 

His was a life of public service. During the Supreme 

Court’s 1951 and 1952 terms, he served as a law clerk for 

Justice Robert Jackson. From 1969 to 1971, he served as Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office 

of Legal Counsel. And from January 7, 1972, to his passing 

Saturday, he served on the Supreme Court. Through his life 

of service, Justice REHNQUIST has left an indelible mark on 

this Nation. 

In 1969, on appointing Judge Burger as Chief Justice of 

the Supreme Court, President Nixon had said: Our Chief 

Justices have probably had more profound and lasting influence on their times and on the direction of the Nation than 

most Presidents. 

President Nixon was right. And the service of Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST was proof. 

In 1971, President Nixon nominated Justice REHNQUIST to 

the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice. And in 1986, 

President Reagan elevated him to the position of Chief Justice. In the history of this Nation, only 16 men have held this 

high office. Justice REHNQUIST presided over the court as 

Chief Justice for 19 years. Only three men served longer as 

Chief Justice: Melville Weston Fuller, Roger Taney, and 

John Marshall. 

I felt a tie with Justice REHNQUIST, as he had attended 

Stanford University and Stanford Law School, a few years 

ahead of me at both schools. In another one of those quirks 

of history, he attended the same Stanford Law School class 

with Sandra Day O’Connor, who would later join him on the 

Supreme Court. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 51 ] 

I was also able to observe Chief Justice REHNQUIST at 

close range, in 1999, when he presided over the Senate sitting in on the impeachment trial of President Clinton. Chief 

Justice REHNQUIST had written a book on impeachments. 

But more important, his presence brought dignity and a 

much-needed sense of humor to those difficult proceedings. 

At one point he noted that a Senate rule forbids both sides 

in the impeachment trial from objecting to a question. 

From the presiding officer’s chair, the Chief Justice wryly 

observed: The Parliamentarian says they can only object to 

an answer and not to a question, which is kind of an unusual 

thing. 

The Chief Justice chuckled, and Senators laughed with 

him. 

At another point, Majority Leader Lott asked how much 

time each side had used. The Chief Justice checked with the 

Parliamentarian and first announced that the House managers had taken 54 minutes and the White House had taken 

57 minutes. But then the Chief Justice said that he needed 

to correct himself, saying that the House managers had actually used up 64 minutes, not just 54 minutes. 

House Manager Rogan, who was scheduled to speak next, 

inquired: I trust that doesn’t mean I have to sit down, Mr. 

Chief Justice. 

The Chief Justice quipped in response: It’s not retroactive. 

Mr. President, Chief Justice REHNQUIST wrote many opinions with which I do not agree. He was a very conservative 

Justice. 

But I will miss Chief Justice REHNQUIST. He was a great 

figure of our times. We will not forget him. 

MONDAY, September 26, 2005 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate 

begins the debate on the confirmation of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., to be Chief Justice of the United States. It is not 

an overstatement to note this is a historic debate. At the age 

of 50, Judge Roberts, if confirmed, has the potential to serve 

as Chief Justice until the year 2040 or beyond. 

Today, Justice John Paul Stevens, at the age of 85, continues to serve. If you project Judge Roberts ahead 35 years, 

it would be to the year 2040. Obviously, by that time it will 

be a very different world. There will be very different issues 

which will confront the Court with the advances in techVerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 52 ] 

nology, with the advances in brain scanning, key questions 

as to how far the privilege against self-incrimination goes to 

scan someone’s brain. Will it be like a blood test and fingerprints or will it be viewed as invasive and a violation of a 

right to privacy? Those are the kinds of issues which Judge 

Roberts will confront if confirmed as Chief Justice. 

He also has the potential to project a new image on the 

Supreme Court. That Court has been buffeted by a whole series of 5-to-4 decisions. Candidly, some of them are inexplicable, where you have, this year, the Supreme Court of 

the United States saying that Texas could display the Ten 

Commandments outdoors, but Kentucky could not display 

the Ten Commandments indoors. There are some minor differences, but it is hard to understand how the Ten Commandments can be shown in Texas but not in Kentucky by 

a 5-to-4 vote. 

Under the very important legislation of the Americans 

With Disabilities Act, the Supreme Court had two 5-to-4 decisions 3 years apart. One, in a case captioned Garrett v. 

University of Alabama, in 2001, the Supreme Court declared 

the title unconstitutional which dealt with discrimination 

against the disabled in employment. 

Three years later, in Tennessee v. Lane, the Supreme 

Court upheld the constitutionality of another title of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act which dealt with access to 

public accommodations. We have seen a proliferation of opinions with multiple concurrences, making them very hard to 

understand. Earlier this year, the Judiciary Committee took 

up the issue of what was happening in Guantanamo, and a 

study was undertaken on three opinions handed down by the 

Supreme Court in June of last year. On one case, they 

couldn’t get a majority, a plurality of four, so there was no 

holding. In the other two cases, there were concurrences and 

dissents. You have a pattern which exists where Justice A 

will write a concurring opinion, joined by Justice B, and Justice B will write a separate concurring opinion, joined by 

Justice A and Justice C. 

This is an issue which was considered during the course 

of Judge Roberts’ hearings. It is one where a new judge, a 

new Chief Justice at the age of 50, will have an opportunity 

to make some very systemic changes in the way the Court 

functions. When Judge Roberts was questioned about his 

ability to handle this matter—first during the informal meeting in my office and later in the hearings—he said he 

thought he could handle it because, in his many appearances 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 53 ] 

before the Supreme Court, some 39 in number, it was a dialog among equals. I was impressed by his concept of a dialog 

among equals, that he considered himself as a lawyer arguing before the Court to be dealing with equals. I have had 

occasion three times to appear before the Supreme Court, 

and it didn’t seem to me like a dialog among equals. But 

when you have been there 39 times and you know the Justices as well as he does—and the word is that the Justices 

very much applaud his nomination to be Chief Justice—he 

has the potential almost from a running start to bring a new 

day and a new era to the Supreme Court. That is a very attractive feature about his projection as Chief Justice. 

We know the famous historical story about Earl Warren’s 

becoming Chief Justice in 1953. The Court was then faced 

with Brown v. Board of Education, the desegregation case. 

There were many disputes in the Court at that time. They 

had to carry the case over. Chief Justice Warren was able to 

get a unanimous Court, which was important, so that contentious issue was one where nine Justices agreed and came 

down with an opinion which was obviously difficult to implement but had a great deal more stature because of its unanimity. So here is an extra bonus for the Court, an extra 

bonus for America, if confirmed as Chief Justice: the potential that Judge Roberts has to promote a new day and a new 

era for the Court administratively. 

On his qualifications, Judge Roberts was rated ‘‘well qualified’’ by the American Bar Association. It is understandable, 

since he was a summa cum laude graduate of Harvard College, magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School; had 

a very distinguished career as assistant to Attorney General 

William French Smith, after serving as a clerk to a distinguished Second Circuit judge, Henry Friendly; then served 

as clerk to then-Associate Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST; then, 

following his work with Attorney General William French 

Smith, became Associate White House Counsel; practiced 

with the prestigious law firm of Hogan & Hartson—Hogan & 

Hartson was prestigious before Judge Roberts got there but 

a lot more so after he was there and, frankly, after he left—

then his status as a premier appellate lawyer; then the Supreme Court with some 39 cases. 

It was my view that Judge Roberts has a broad, expansive 

understanding of the application of the Constitution. He 

said: 

They 

—referring to the Framers—

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 54 ] 

were crafting a document that they intended to apply in a meaningful way 

down through the ages. 

While he would not quite accept my characterization of 

agreement with Justice John Marshall Harlan on the document being a living thing, he did say that the core principles 

of liberty and due process had broad meaning as applied to 

evolving societal conditions. He is not an originalist. He is 

not looking to original intent. But he sees the Constitution 

for the ages and adaptable to evolving societal conditions. 

On the issue of how many questions he answered before 

the Judiciary Committee, I believe he answered more than 

most but, candidly, did not answer as many questions as I 

would like to have had him answer. I will detail that in the 

course of this brief presentation. 

I have observed, in the 10 Supreme Court nominations 

where I have had the privilege to participate on the Judiciary Committee, that nominees answer about as many questions as they believe they have to in order to be confirmed. 

But it has become an evolving process. A view of some of the 

history of Supreme Court nominations is relevant to see 

what has happened, what is in the course of happening, and 

what the next nominee may face. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee has conducted hearings 

on nominees only since 1916—that is, for the Supreme 

Court—with the nomination of Louis Brandeis by President 

Woodrow Wilson. Justice Brandeis did not appear. The first 

time a nominee appeared before the committee was in 1925. 

The nominee was Harlan Fiske Stone. An issue had arisen 

as to whether there was a political motivation in the controversial investigation into the conduct of Judge Burton 

Wheeler. Justice Stone asked to appear to respond to the allegations. He did so, and he was confirmed. 

In 1939, President Roosevelt nominated Felix Frankfurter, 

who initially refused to appear personally, but after being attacked for his foreign birth, his religious beliefs, and his associations, Frankfurter decided to appear. He read from a 

prepared statement, refused to discuss his personal views on 

issues before the Supreme Court. His hearing lasted only an 

hour and a half in duration and did not set a precedent for 

future nominees. 

In 1949, Sherman Minton, who had been a U.S. Senator, 

became the only Supreme Court nominee to refuse to testify 

before the Judiciary Committee. Minton wrote to the committee: 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 55 ] 

I feel the personal participation by the nominee in the committee proceedings related to his nomination presents a serious question of propriety, 

particularly when I might be required to express my views on highly controversial and litigious issues affecting the Court. 

Notwithstanding Minton’s refusal, the committee conducted its hearing in Minton’s absence and confirmed him. 

It wasn’t until 1955, with the nomination of Justice John 

Marshall Harlan, that nominees have appeared regularly before the Judiciary Committee. Only since 1981, following my 

own election in 1980, have the hearings taken on a little different approach as to what the nominees will answer. Justice 

O’Connor declined to answer many questions. The next nomination hearing was that for Chief Justice REHNQUIST, who 

was a sitting Associate Justice. Initially Justice REHNQUIST

declined to appear, then was advised that if he wanted to be 

confirmed, he would have to appear. It was a contentious 

hearing. As the record shows, Chief Justice REHNQUIST was 

confirmed by a vote of 65 to 33. He did answer a great many 

questions, although he did not answer a great many questions. 

I asked him a bedrock question as to whether Congress 

had the authority to take away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States on the first amendment. 

He declined to answer. Overnight a Senate staffer brought 

me an article which had been written by a young Arizona 

lawyer in 1958 by the name of WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST which 

appeared in the Harvard Law Record. The young Arizona 

lawyer, WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, was very tough on the Senate Judiciary Committee for the way it conducted its hearings for Charles Whittaker. Charles Whittaker was from 

Kansas City. There are two Kansas Cities—one in Kansas 

and one in Missouri. Justice Whittaker lived in one and 

practiced law in the other. A big to-do was made about the 

fact that it would be an honor to two States if he was confirmed, where he worked and where he lived. 

This young lawyer from Arizona, BILL REHNQUIST, didn’t 

think that amounted to a whole lot. He chastised the Senate 

Judiciary Committee for not asking about due process and 

other constitutional issues. So in the face of his declination 

to answer my questions on taking jurisdiction away from the 

Supreme Court on the first amendment, I asked him if he 

was that WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST from Arizona. He said, Yes, 

that was true, he was. 

I said: Did you write this article? 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 56 ] 

He said: Yes, I did. Then he added quickly: And I was 

wrong. 

So that didn’t end the issue because having the authority 

of this young lawyer from Arizona, pretty good reasoning, I 

pursued the questions. Finally, he answered the question on 

could the Congress take away the jurisdiction of the Court 

on the first amendment. He said, No, the Congress could not 

do that. 

So naturally I then asked about the fourth amendment, 

search and seizure. Could the Congress take away the jurisdiction from the Supreme Court on search and seizure. He 

declined to answer that. I went to amendment five on privilege against self-incrimination. Again he declined. And then 

six, on right to counsel, and seven, and eight on cruel and 

unusual punishment. Then I asked him a follow-up question: 

Why would he answer on the first amendment but not on 

any of the others? As you may suspect, he refused to answer 

that question as well. 

It was my judgment that Chief Justice REHNQUIST passed 

muster. It was a battle. And then Justice Scalia came before 

the Senate following Chief Justice REHNQUIST. Justice Scalia 

would not answer any questions. As I have said—and really 

too apocryphal—Justice Scalia wouldn’t even give his serial 

number. He would only give his name and rank. Prisoners 

of war are compelled to answer questions, but only three—

name, rank, and serial number. But as I have said, and I 

have said this to Justice Scalia in interpersonal banter, he 

wouldn’t even give us his serial number. But it was perhaps 

an exhausted Senate following the confirmation of Chief Justice REHNQUIST or perhaps it was Justice Scalia’s superb 

academic and professional record, he would not even answer 

the question as to whether he would uphold Marbury v. 

Madison, a decision of the Supreme Court of the United 

States in 1803 where the Court undertook the authority to 

interpret the Constitution and to interpret the law and to be 

the final arbiter of the Constitution. Then in 1987 the Judiciary Committee considered the nomination of Judge Bork 

from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Judge Bork 

had very extensive writings in law reviews and books, many 

speeches, had a very extensive paper trail, a controversial 

paper trail. Judge Bork had written that absent original intent there was no judicial legitimacy, and absent judicial legitimacy, there could not be judicial review. Understandably, 

the committee had many questions for Judge Bork, and in 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 57 ] 

that context Judge Bork felt compelled to answer the questions. 

Mr. HATCH. . . . I was impressed at the REHNQUIST funeral to see some 95 former clerks paying respect to their 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST, some of whom were from Utah. . . . 

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to honor 

the birth of one of Virginia’s and America’s true citizen soldiers, statesmen, and most important jurists, the former 

Chief Justice of the United States, John Marshall. 

The 250th commemoration of his birth over the weekend 

takes on special significance this week as the Senate prepares to confirm John Roberts as the 17th Chief Justice of 

the United States. He will replace Chief Justice WILLIAM

REHNQUIST, whose decent, dedicated and principled leadership will be difficult to replace. I am confident that Judge 

Roberts will follow in the tradition of honorable service that 

was so evident in the work of former Chief Justices 

REHNQUIST and Marshall. . . . 

TUESDAY, September 27, 2005 

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise on the advice and consent question of Judge John Roberts. 

Before I address my judgment on that, I would like to pay 

tribute for a second to Sandra Day O’Connor and the late 

WILLIAM REHNQUIST. 

Sandra Day O’Connor’s announced retirement caused the 

nomination by the President of John Roberts, and subsequently the untimely passing of Chief Justice REHNQUIST afforded the opportunity for that nomination to be for Chief 

Justice as well. In the anticipated furor of this debate and 

confirmation, the credit never was given that should have 

been to Justice O’Connor or Justice REHNQUIST. 

Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman appointed to 

the U.S. Supreme Court. She served with honor and distinction. She wrote brilliantly, concisely, and succinctly, and, 

most important of all, she had an insight and wisdom second 

to none. In fact, I commend to everyone her final writing, her 

dissenting opinion on the eminent domain case, if you want 

to see a Justice who was well grounded and interested in the 

American people. 

WILLIAM REHNQUIST was the 16th Chief Justice of the 

United States, an outstanding individual of immense capacVerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 58 ] 

ity, dedication, and commitment to the United States of 

America. His loss is a tragedy, and the retirement of Justice 

O’Connor is a loss to the Court. . . . 

WEDNESDAY, September 28, 2005 

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, 25 years from now most of the 

events and personalities of September 2005 will have passed 

into the pages of history. New Orleans will once again stand 

proudly as one of America’s most vibrant cities; America will 

have been forced to address our need for energy independence; and the legacies of today’s politicians will be the work 

of tomorrow’s history professors. However, the confirmation 

of John Roberts as the 17th Chief Justice of the United 

States could well be even more significant in 2030 than it is 

today. The Roberts court will have a profound and historic 

impact on the preservation of liberty for decades to come. 

I first met John Roberts when we both served in the 

Reagan administration in the early 1980s. He is a person of 

enormous intelligence, character and judgment. His performance in his Senate confirmation hearings earlier this month 

transcended tv ads, Internet blogs, tv talking heads, and the 

million dollar industry that reduces the judicial nominations 

process to caricatures and buzz words across the political 

spectrum. As many of my colleagues have noted, the Roberts 

confirmation hearings forced a serious examination of the 

role of the Supreme Court and the Federal Government in 

our society. 

My beliefs about the role of government were shaped and 

molded when I served on the staff of Nebraska Congressman 

John Y. McCollister in the 1970s. I remember him warning 

America about the wholesale disregard of the 10th amendment to the Constitution which states: 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 

prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to 

the people. 

In the late 1930s and early 1940s, the Supreme Court used 

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which gives the Federal Government the power to ‘‘regulate commerce,’’ as a 

crowbar to pry open the lid of federalism and more fully insert the Federal Government into the lives of the American 

people. By the 1970s, we saw an expansion of the Federal 

Government’s power our Founders could not have imagined. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 59 ] 

At the same time that Congressman McCollister was invoking the 10th amendment in the House of Representatives, 

Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST was frequently the lone voice on 

the Supreme Court for the discretion of States and the integrity of the 10th amendment. Much has been said about WILLIAM REHNQUIST in the last month. He was a giant of our 

time. As history considers his legacy, I believe his ability to 

move the Court back to a responsible position concerning 

federalism will be his greatest accomplishment. In this, he 

had a strong ally in Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. 

The Founders did not arrive at the 10th amendment by accident. It was a necessary compromise in order to get the 

Constitution ratified. The Founders believed that the Constitution must protect the citizens of the United States from 

the consolidation of the Federal Government’s power. History 

has proven them wise. Well-meaning politicians never have 

enough power to do all the good things they believe are essential to the Nation’s well-being. History shows that the 

growth of central governments is no substitute for the ingenuity and energy of individual citizens. 

It was President Woodrow Wilson who said: 

The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, 

not the increase of it. 

As we work to address 21st century challenges like terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and 

incredible advances in technology, we will constantly be confronted with the need to balance the expansion of the Federal Government’s power with States rights, individual liberties and national security. As we act to secure our Nation, 

we must also guard against Federal overreaching. That is 

why measures like the sunset provisions in laws like the Patriot Act are so important. 

In years to come, Congress will be under great pressure to 

reach into areas of law historically reserved for State and 

local governments, including land use, education, economic 

development, law enforcement and contract law, including 

marriage. A wise and judicious Supreme Court will be as 

critical as it has ever been to see America through this volatile time. 

Decades from now, if John Roberts can look back upon a 

legacy of having protected the rights of States and individuals while helping strengthen America from within, and constraining the power of the Federal Government, then it will 

be a legacy worthy of succeeding WILLIAM REHNQUIST. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 60 ] 

Mr. VOINOVICH. . . . The Chief Justice is the top administrator of the Federal Courts, so any nominee to Chief Justice 

must possess management skills. Former Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST was an excellent administrator, so Judge Roberts 

has some shoes to fill. . . . 

THURSDAY, September 29, 2005 

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this is a critical time in 

our Nation’s history. For the first time in more than a decade, we have not just one but two vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court. Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman Justice 

and often the critical deciding vote, is retiring, and Chief 

Justice REHNQUIST, who served on the Court for more than 

33 years, passed away after a courageous battle with cancer. 

. . . 

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, Senators cast many 

important votes—votes to strengthen our highway system, or 

to implement a comprehensive energy strategy, for example—but it is not often we cast a vote that is both important 

and truly historic. We do so, however, when we vote on 

whether to confirm a nominee to be Chief Justice of the 

United States. 

There have been 9,869 Members of the House of Representatives, 1,884 Senators, and 43 Presidents of the United 

States, but only 16 Chief Justices. On average, each Chief 

Justice serves for well over a decade. Our last Chief Justice 

served for 19 years, a little short of two decades. The occupant of the ‘‘center seat’’ on the Court often has had a profound impact on the shape and substance of our legal system. But despite such profound effects, the position of Chief 

Justice actually got off to a rather inauspicious start. 

The Constitution of the United States mentions the position of Chief Justice only once. Interestingly, it does not do 

so in Article III, which establishes the judicial branch of our 

government. Rather, the Constitution refers to the position 

of Chief Justice, almost in passing, only in Article I, which 

sets forth the powers of the legislative branch. 

There, in Section 3, Clause 6, it discusses the Senate’s procedures for a trial of an impeached President, stating that 

‘‘When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief 

Justice shall preside.’’ That is the sum and substance of his 

constitutional authority. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 61 ] 

The Judiciary Act of 1789, which established the Federal 

court system, did not add much to the Chief Justice’s responsibilities. It specified merely that ‘‘the supreme court of the 

United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices.’’

It is not surprising, then, that the position of Chief Justice 

initially was not viewed as particularly important. Indeed, 

the first Chief Justice, John Jay, left completely disillusioned, believing that neither the Court nor the post would 

ever amount to very much. 

It took George Washington four tries to find Jay’s successor, as prominent people repeatedly turned him down. 

They were turning down George Washington’s offers to make 

them the Chief Justice of the United States. 

With such humble constitutional roots for the office, the 

power, prestige, and independence of the Supreme Court and 

the Federal court system in general often has been tied to 

the particular personal qualities of those who have served as 

Chief Justice. 

John Marshall was our first great Chief Justice. His twin 

legacies were to increase respect for the Court and, relatedly, 

its power as well. He worked to establish clear, unanimous 

opinions for the Court, and his opinion in Marbury v. Madison forever cemented the Court as a co-equal branch of government. 

Marshall’s successes were viewed, then as now, as a function of his formidable personal qualities. He is said to have 

had a ‘‘first-class mind and a thoroughly engaging personality.’’ Thomas Jefferson, for example, tried, in vain, to break 

his influence on the Court. In writing to James Madison, his 

successor, about Supreme Court appointments, Jefferson 

said: 

[I]t will be difficult to find a character of firmness to preserve his independence on the same bench with Marshall. 

That is Thomas Jefferson speaking about Chief Justice 

Marshall. 

I find myself agreeing with the columnist George Will, who 

wrote recently in one of his columns: 

Marshall is the most important American never to have been President. 

William Howard Taft and Charles Evans Hughes also used 

their individual talents to become great Chief Justices. Taft, 

the only Chief Justice to serve also as President, which was 

prior to that, had a singular determination to modernize the 

Federal courts. He used his energy and his political acumen 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 62 ] 

to convince Congress to establish what is now the Judicial 

Conference of the United States to administer the Federal 

courts; enact the Judiciary Act of 1925, which allowed the 

Court to decide the cases it would hear; and, before he left 

office, to give the Court its first, and current, permanent 

home—a stone’s throw from where we stand today, across 

the East Lawn of the Capitol. 

A fellow Justice called Charles Evans Hughes ‘‘the greatest in a great line of Chief Justices.’’ He was known for his 

leadership in running the Court and for constantly working 

to enhance the public’s confidence in the Court. His successes were at least partly due to his keen appreciation of 

the limits of that office. This is what Charles Evans Hughes 

had to say: 

The Chief Justice as the head of the Court has an outstanding position, 

but in a small body of able men with equal authority in the making of decisions, it is evident that his actual influence will depend on the strength of 

his character and the demonstration of his ability in the intimate relations 

of the judges. 

Hughes was famous for the efficient, skillful, and courteous way in which he presided at oral argument, ran the 

Court’s conferences, and assigned opinions, calling the latter 

his ‘‘most delicate task.’’ But his greatest service may have 

been in spearheading public opposition to FDR’s court-packing plan. 

Our last great Chief Justice, WILLIAM REHNQUIST, may be 

said to have possessed the best qualities of Marshall, Taft, 

and Hughes. He had an exceptional mind, an engaging personality, boundless energy, and a courteous and professional 

manner. These qualities helped him revolutionize Federal jurisprudence, administer the Supreme Court and the court 

system very efficiently, and interact constructively with 

those of us here in Congress. . . . 

FRIDAY, September 30, 2005 

Mr. ALLEN. On September 3, 2005, America lost one of its 

greatest public servants when, following a year-long battle 

with cancer, WILLIAM HUBBS REHNQUIST passed away at the 

age of 80. At the time of his death, he had been a member 

of the U.S. Supreme Court for 33 distinguished years, having 

served as Chief Justice since 1986 and previously as an Associate Justice, appointed in 1972. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 63 ] 

Much of WILLIAM REHNQUIST’s professional career was 

dedicated to public service. He served his country honorably 

in the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II from 1943 

to 1946. After his military service, he earned an undergraduate, a master’s and a law degree from Stanford University. Even further demonstrating his intellectual acumen, 

REHNQUIST also graduated with a master’s degree from Harvard University and was first in his class at Stanford University Law School. After law school, he became a Supreme 

Court clerk for Associate Justice Robert Jackson before leaving for private practice in Arizona. In 1969, Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST joined the Nixon administration as an Assistant 

Attorney General where he served until 1971. That year, 

President Nixon nominated WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST to be on 

the Supreme Court; the following year, he was confirmed to 

be an Associate Justice by the U.S. Senate. 

It was on the Supreme Court that WILLIAM REHNQUIST

built his reputation as one of the great legal minds of our 

time. His tenure on the High Court of the land, both as an 

Associate Justice and as the Chief Justice, was an extraordinary achievement. I was particularly impressed with his 

leadership as the head of the entire Federal judiciary, as 

well as his affable personal demeanor on the bench and off, 

both of which were important traits in his role as Chief. 

I respect immensely the way in which Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST served on the Court with honor and restraint. As 

a Justice, he fairly and properly interpreted the words of the 

Constitution without usurping the rights of the American 

people and those of the States to make laws as they deem 

appropriate rather than allowing un-elected judges who are 

appointed for life to substitute their personal political views 

for the popular will of the people. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST clearly understood that judges 

ought to apply the law and Constitution, not invent the law 

or amend the Constitution by judicial decree. And I believe 

that he perfectly embodied what I consider to be the proper 

role of a Justice and that America should be grateful for his 

long and distinguished public service on the bench. 

Our Nation was so fortunate to have a man of WILLIAM

REHNQUIST’s intelligence and legal experience in public service for so many years. As a Supreme Court Justice, he was 

a decent, dedicated, steady, and principled jurist whose legal 

brilliance and knowledge will be difficult to replace. Chief 

Justice REHNQUIST deserves America’s gratitude for his over 

three decades of dedicated service on the Supreme Court and 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 64 ] 

a life devoted to the service of this great Nation and its citizens. 

My condolences go out to his family, in particular his three 

children, James, Janet, and Nancy, during this difficult time. 

May he rest in peace. 

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I was deeply saddened to learn 

of the passing of Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST. He will 

most certainly be remembered as one of this Nation’s greatest Chief Justices. 

During his 33 years of distinguished service on the High 

Court, Chief Justice REHNQUIST served with tremendous wisdom, skill, and intellect. His legacy will be defined by his 

calm and steady leadership, his staunch defense of the Constitution, and his support of an independent judiciary. 

Born into a modest home in the Midwest, REHNQUIST enlisted in the Army at age 19 during World War II. He went 

on to have a very impressive academic career, earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees in political science from Stanford 

University. In 1950, REHNQUIST received a master’s degree 

in government from Harvard University. He later returned 

to Stanford Law School, where he graduated first in his class 

and served as the editor of the law review. 

After law school, REHNQUIST served as a law clerk to Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. He then settled 

in Phoenix, AZ, with his wife Nancy, where he spent 20 

years in successful private practice. In 1968, REHNQUIST returned to Washington, DC, to serve as President Nixon’s Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. In 

1972, WILLIAM REHNQUIST became the 100th Justice of the 

U.S. Supreme Court. 

I expect we will hear much discussion in the coming years 

about the legacy of Chief Justice REHNQUIST. But I am confident that a significant part of his legacy, his strong leadership of the Court, will be unquestionable. President Bush 

said at REHNQUIST’s memorial service, ‘‘He built consensus 

through openness and collegiality.’’ Likewise, praise from so 

many of his colleagues and friends serve as a true testament 

to WILLIAM REHNQUIST’s ability to treat people graciously 

and fairly, both from the bench and in his personal life. 

The praise for his professional life is certainly plentiful, 

but we know that most important to WILLIAM REHNQUIST

was his family. He was greatly loved as a husband, father, 

grandfather, and uncle. His daughters Nancy and Janet 

joked that dating your father was completely underrated, 

after they had the pleasure of accompanying their father 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 65 ] 

around Washington and on foreign trips after the death of 

their mother. He was a family man, first and foremost. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST deserves our praise and our tremendous gratitude for his dedicated service to this country. 

Our Nation mourns the passing of this great man. The significant contributions he made, personally and professionally, will certainly be remembered always. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 67 ] 

Proceedings in the 

House of Representatives 

TUESDAY, September 6, 2005 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE 

A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, 

announced that the Senate has passed a concurrent resolution of the following title in which the concurrence of the 

House is requested: 

S. Con. Res. 52. Concurrent resolution providing for the use of the catafalque situated in the crypt beneath the Rotunda of the Capitol in connection with memorial services to be conducted in the Supreme Court Building 

for the late honorable WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, Chief Justice of the United 

States. 

COMMUNICATION FROM ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert) laid before the 

House the following communication from Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 

Washington, DC, September 6, 2005. 

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: This is to notify the House of Representatives, 

through you, that the Chief Justice of the United States died in Arlington, 

Virginia, on Saturday, September 3, 2005. 

Very truly yours, 

ANTONIN SCALIA, 

Associate Justice. 

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 422) and ask for its immediate consideration. 

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: 

H. RES. 422 

Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the death 

of the Honorable WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST; Chief Justice of the United States. 

Resolved, That the House tenders its deep sympathy to the members of 

the family of the late Chief Justice in their bereavement. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 68 ] 

Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions to the Senate and 

to the Supreme Court and transmit a copy of the same to the family of the 

late Chief Justice. 

Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a further 

mark of respect to the memory of the late Chief Justice. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. 

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 

take from the Speaker’s table the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 52) providing for the use of the catafalque 

situated in the crypt beneath the Rotunda of the Capitol in 

connection with memorial services to be conducted in the Supreme Court Building for the late Honorable WILLIAM H. 

REHNQUIST, Chief Justice of the United States, and ask for 

its immediate consideration in the House. 

The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? 

There was no objection. 

The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows: 

S. CON. RES. 52 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the 

Architect of the Capitol is authorized and directed to transfer to the custody 

of the Supreme Court of the United States the catafalque which is situated 

in the crypt beneath the Rotunda of the Capitol so that such catafalque may 

be used in the Supreme Court Building in connection with services to be 

conducted there for the late honorable WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, Chief Justice 

of the United States. 

The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 

422, I move that the House do now adjourn in memory of the 

late Honorable WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, Chief Justice of the 

United States. 

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o’clock and 

44 minutes p.m.), pursuant to House Resolution 422, the 

House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, September 7, 

2005, at 10 a.m. in memory of the late Honorable WILLIAM

H. REHNQUIST, Chief Justice of the United States. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 69 ] 

WEDNESDAY, September 7, 2005 

PRAYER 

The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered 

the following prayer: 

Since justice and judgment are the foundation of Your 

throne, Lord God; because You love those who hate evil and 

guard the lives of Your faithful ones, Lord, we know that 

You welcome into the heavenly court Your servant, Chief 

Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST. 

May his legacy continue to guide this Chamber, the provisions of the courts of this land and the citizens governed; to 

seek the truth behind every dispute and deferring opinion, to 

work for equal justice under the law for all Your people. 

Eternal rest and reward grant unto him, O Lord. Amen. 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today our 

thoughts and prayers are with the Rehnquist family and our 

Nation. As we celebrate the life of Chief Justice WILLIAM

REHNQUIST today, we mourn the loss of a true leader who 

made the most of his unique opportunity to help the American people. He was a skilled judge and a brilliant man who 

devoted over a third of his life to ensuring that our highest 

court fairly upheld our laws. 

From fighting excessive Federal laws as an Associate Justice to battling cancer as Chief Justice, REHNQUIST embodied 

determination and conviction throughout his tenure. Often 

the lone vote on an issue, he remained true to his conservative beliefs and worked tirelessly to ensure that justice was 

fairly delivered, and efficiently. Because of his monumental 

impact on our legal system, he earned a valuable place in 

our Nation’s history. 

As his family and friends gather today, I would like to express my sincere respect and gratitude for the life and work 

of Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST. 

In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget September 11. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 

consent that it shall be in order at any time to consider in 

the House the resolution (H. Res. 423); the resolution shall 

be considered as read; and the previous question shall be 

considered as ordered on the resolution to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) 1 hour of debate equally divided and conVerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 70 ] 

trolled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the 

order of the House entered into previously today, I call up 

the resolution (H. Res. 423) honoring and recognizing the 

distinguished service, career, and achievements of Chief Justice WILLIAM HUBBS REHNQUIST upon his death, and for 

other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration. 

The Clerk read the title of the resolution. 

The text of House Resolution 423 is as follows: 

H. RES. 423 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST was born on October 1, 1924, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and grew up the son of a paper salesman; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST served the United States in the Army 

Air Corps during World War II; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST attended and graduated from Stanford 

University, earning a bachelor’s and master’s degree in political science, and 

a second master’s degree in government from Harvard University; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST went on to graduate first in his class at 

Stanford Law School in 1952, where he met his wife Natalie ‘‘Nan’’ Cornell; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST and Natalie had three children: James, 

Janet, and Nancy; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST served as a law clerk to Justice Robert 

H. Jackson on the Supreme Court during the 1951 and 1952 terms, and as 

Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Office of Legal 

Counsel, where he advised the Nixon Administration on constitutional law 

from 1969 until 1971; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST was appointed by President Nixon and 

confirmed by the Senate as an Associate Justice of the United States on December 10, 1971, at the age of 47; 

Whereas WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST was appointed by President Reagan and 

confirmed by the Senate as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States in 

1986; 

Whereas Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s 33-year tenure on the Supreme Court 

was one of the longest and most influential in the Nation’s history; 

Whereas legal scholars of all perspectives rank Chief Justice REHNQUIST

as among the great Chief Justices of the United States who influenced the 

interpretation of the law in significant ways; 

Whereas Chief Justice REHNQUIST was widely respected for his 

evenhandedness as Chief Justice; and 

Whereas on January 7, 2002, the 30th Anniversary of his swearing in at 

the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens praised Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST for ‘‘the efficiency, good humor and absolute impartiality that 

you have consistently displayed when presiding at our Conferences’’: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 71 ] 

(1) has learned with profound sorrow of the death of Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST; and 

(2) honors, recognizes, and expresses gratitude for the distinguished service, career, and achievements of WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST upon his death. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the 

House of today, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) 

each will control 30 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 

Sensenbrenner). 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 

time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 

423 which honors and recognizes the distinguished service, 

career, and achievements of Chief Justice WILLIAM HUBBS

REHNQUIST upon his death. 

Mr. Speaker, the passing of Chief Justice REHNQUIST

means that a long and distinguished career has come to an 

end. WILLIAM REHNQUIST was born on October 1, 1924, in 

Milwaukee, WI, and was raised in nearby Shorewood, WI, 

which currently lies in the congressional district I am proud 

to represent. The future Chief Justice attended Kenyon College briefly before joining the U.S. Army Air Corps during 

World War II. 

Following his career in the Army, Chief Justice REHNQUIST

attended and graduated from Stanford University, where he 

received a bachelor’s and master’s degree in political science 

and a second master’s degree in government from Harvard 

University. 

At Stanford Law School, the future Chief Justice graduated first in the class that famously included his future colleague, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. It was also at Stanford Law School that the Chief Justice met his future wife, 

Natalie ‘‘Nan’’ Cornell, whom he married in 1953. 

After graduation, WILLIAM REHNQUIST clerked for Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson for the 1952 and 

1953 terms. He then went on to practice as an attorney in 

his adopted home State of Arizona for several years before 

returning to Washington, DC, to serve as Assistant Attorney 

General for the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, where he advised the Nixon administration on constitutional law from 1969 until 1971. 

On October 22, 1971, President Nixon nominated WILLIAM

REHNQUIST to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court 

created by Justice John Marshall Harlan’s retirement. The 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 72 ] 

Senate confirmed him to the post of Associate Justice on December 10, 1971, and he was sworn into office on January 

7, 1972, at the age of 47. 

Under his leadership, federalism, judicial restraint, and 

State autonomy once again became staple features of the 

Court’s jurisprudence. Chief Justice REHNQUIST deeply respected the proper roles of each branch of government and 

the separation of powers envisioned by our Founders. He repeatedly acknowledged that the first amendment to the Constitution guaranteed the free exercise of religion. 

By the time President Reagan nominated him to become 

the 16th Chief Justice of the United States on June 20, 1986, 

to replace Warren Burger, the pieces were in place for the 

Chief Justice to make a profound impact on American jurisprudence. His commitment to his principles were evidenced 

in his majority opinion upholding Cleveland, Ohio’s program 

of school vouchers, which allowed public school students in 

poor areas to use vouchers to attend better, and often religious, schools, against an establishment clause challenge. 

His support for freedom of religion was also evidenced in his 

concurring opinion of Elk Grove Unified School District v. 

Newdow, in which he rightly concluded that the phrase 

‘‘under God’’ in the Pledge of Allegiance was not a violation 

of the establishment clause. 

Most recently, Chief Justice REHNQUIST joined Justice 

O’Connor’s dissent in Kelo v. City of New London in which 

they correctly concluded that it is a violation of the fifth 

amendment’s public use clause when a government takes 

private property and gives it to another private entity to use 

for private commercial purposes. 

Apart from the doctrinal changes the Chief Justice brought 

to the Court, he also streamlined the manner in which the 

Court operated. His keen intellect and evenhandedness were 

appreciated by all of his colleagues. On the 30th anniversary 

of REHNQUIST’s swearing in, Justice John Paul Stevens, who 

often found himself on the opposite side of opinions from the 

Chief Justice, praised him for the ‘‘efficiency, good humor, 

and absolute impartiality that you have consistently displayed when presiding at our conferences.’’ These traits have 

led observers of all political persuasions to view Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST as one of the most consequential jurists in our 

history. 

When Chief Justice REHNQUIST was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in October 2004, many of his admirers feared 

that his tenure on the Court would come to an end. The 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 73 ] 

Chief Justice, however, had other plans and continued to 

make his presence felt on the Court even as he battled his 

disease. Unfortunately, last Saturday, Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST lost that battle, and the country has lost a great 

intellect and a great public servant. His decision to swear in 

President George W. Bush last January while battling his illness inspired millions of Americans. 

From a personal standpoint, let me say that I first met the 

future Chief Justice back in 1968 going door to door while 

running for a seat in the Wisconsin Assembly, and when I 

knocked on his parents’ door, they introduced me to the 

Chief Justice-to-be, and he and I have kept contact up for a 

number of years until he passed away, both before he was 

selected for the Court and I was elected to the Congress. 

As the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, let me 

say that I deeply appreciated the Chief Justice’s invitations 

to address the twice-yearly meetings of the Judicial Conference of the United States on issues relating to the separation of powers and the interrelationship to how the laws the 

Congress passes relate to the operation of the third branch 

of government. I can say that the Chief Justice was extremely responsive when I had complained that the judicial 

discipline statute enacted in 1980 was not being utilized 

properly and effectively in terms of disciplining judges in the 

appeals court and in the lower Federal courts that may have 

strayed from the bounds of propriety and the ethical standards that we hope all of the judges will uphold. 

I can say that probably one of my most profound memories 

of the Chief Justice was at a Judicial Conference meeting on 

the morning of September 11, 2001, where, because I had the 

first three bills up on the floor at 10 o’clock, the Chief Justice 

put me on first. At that time the Twin Towers had both been 

hit, and the Chief Justice came in, sat down and said, ‘‘Jim, 

make this snappy. Something bad is going on.’’

So my remarks got condensed to a minute and a half and 

the Chief Justice said, ‘‘There are no questions of the chairman, are there?’’ And everybody else in the room got the 

message, so I was then excused, and when I got here to the 

Capitol to make the three motions for suspensions of the 

rules, the Pentagon had already been hit. So the Chief Justice, I think, was advised that we were all in danger, he 

wanted to get the business done despite the danger, and he 

was able to do that. I think that this shows his character, 

and that touched me in an extremely personal way. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 74 ] 

While the country has lost so much, his family, including 

his children James, Nancy, and Janet, and his six grandchildren have lost a loving family member as well. I know 

that the whole House will join me in extending our condolences to his family and our thanks for his great service to 

this country. I hope that all Members will join me in supporting House Resolution 423 honoring, recognizing, and expressing our gratitude for the distinguished service, career, 

and achievements of Chief Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST. 

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 

may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate the life of Chief Justice REHNQUIST. Chief Justice REHNQUIST was devoted to the 

highest court of the land and, more broadly, to our system 

of justice; and throughout his long tenure, he served them 

both admirably. During his 33 years on the Court, 19 of 

which were as Chief Justice, he chartered a definitive path 

which reflected his philosophy and left an unquestionable 

impact on the direction of the Court. 

In his early years on the Court, at a time when his approach to constitutional interpretation often was not shared 

by a majority on the Court, Justice REHNQUIST stuck closely 

to his principles, earning him the moniker ‘‘The Lone Ranger.’’ Over time, he was joined by other Justices who shared 

his ideology, and he was able to craft majorities that moved 

the Court toward adopting his vision of the law. To his great 

credit, when faced with a conflict between his own strongly 

held position and the dictates of stare decisis, as happened 

with recent efforts to limit the Miranda decision, he frequently sided with precedent. 

While it is fair to say that over the years on decisions 

which have split the Court, I have probably disagreed with 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s opinions more often than I have 

agreed with them; however, I have admired many of his efforts to protect the independence of the judiciary and his 

willingness to criticize his own party. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST often stated his discomfort with 

Congress encroaching on a court’s prerogative in an attempt 

to guard judicial independence. He lashed out at those attempting to impeach judicial activists and threaten judges 

for rulings they did not like. ‘‘The Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges but to promote the 

rule of law. Judges are expected to administer the law fairly, 

without regard to public reaction,’’ he once said. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 75 ] 

Chief Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST also criticized Congress for repeatedly enacting Federal criminal laws that 

overlap State laws. The States have the primary role in the 

area of crime and law enforcement, he said in his annual 

message on the judiciary, and Congress needs to think twice 

before turning ‘‘every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime’’ into a new Federal law. ‘‘The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in State 

courts not only is taxing the judiciary’s resources,’’ he said, 

‘‘but it also threatens to change entirely the nature of the 

Federal system. Federal courts were not created to adjudicate local crimes, no matter how sensational or heinous the 

crimes may be. State courts do, can, and should handle such 

problems.’’

The impact of Congress having relegated more complex 

and time-consuming cases appropriate for State court adjudication to Federal jurisdiction, such as Congress did with 

class action reform, warranted REHNQUIST’s rebuke: 

Congress should commit itself to conserving the Federal courts as a distinctive judicial forum of limited jurisdiction in our system of federalism. 

Civil and criminal jurisdiction should be assigned to the Federal courts only 

to further clearly define national interests, leaving to the State courts the 

responsibility for adjudicating all other matters. This long-range plan for 

Federal courts is based not simply on the preferences of Federal judges but 

on the traditional principle of federalism that has guided this country 

throughout its existence. 

As noted by the New York Times, Chief Justice REHNQUIST

was also duly critical of hastily enacted limitations on judicial sentencing decisions and the potential damage that compiling information on the sentencing habits of individual 

judges could do to fair and impartial Justices. Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST plainly saw his role as defender in chief of the 

Nation’s independent court system, which he famously called 

‘‘one of the crown jewels of our system of government.’’

His often practical approach to immeasurably weighty responsibility of having one out of nine votes on the most powerful court in the country reflected his devotion and respect 

for the institution of the Supreme Court and its effect on the 

lives of all Americans. Nowhere did Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST’s love for the Court shine through more than in 

his numerous books on Supreme Court history and lore. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST also displayed considerable skill 

in managing an often divided Court. His colleagues have spoken of his deft ability, good humor, and impartiality as he 

led the Court through landmark cases. On top of this, he 

served for nearly two decades as the chief judicial officer of 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 76 ] 

the Nation’s Federal court system, constantly advocating for 

the resources needed to improve the courts’ mission of delivering evenhanded justice throughout the Nation. 

I would commend to my colleagues the op-ed piece in the 

New York Times yesterday by Laurence Tribe, a frequent litigator in the Supreme Court who argued many, many cases, 

who speaks of Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s career there and 

finds many, many reasons to praise and admire him. He 

closes his article urging that as the Senate now considers the 

confirmation of a new Chief Justice, they look to one of the 

issues that he felt Chief Justice REHNQUIST so ably stood for 

and that is the ability of new Justices to help the Court earn 

the respect of all who take part in its proceedings or are affected by its rulings, which means everyone. ‘‘Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST,’’ Professor Tribe noted, ‘‘was a master at that 

mission. For that, and for the steadiness of his leadership, 

I will always remember him with profound gratitude and admiration.’’

We are all saddened by the loss of Chief Justice WILLIAM

REHNQUIST. As we mourn his death, regardless of our political differences, we must remember how he selflessly gave to 

the Court and the Nation. His work is an important legacy 

that impacts every American’s life and will shape the lives 

of future generations. I join the Nation in applauding his accomplishments, and I express my sympathy for our collective 

loss. 

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 

the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble). 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, not unlike the gentleman from 

Wisconsin, I also appeared at the Supreme Court on 9/11 to 

address the judicial conference. Just as I approached the podium, the Chief Justice handed me a note which read: ‘‘The 

Pentagon has been bombed.’’ I thought perhaps they did not 

know about the World Trade Center because they had been 

in session the entire morning, and I said, ‘‘No, Chief, it’s the 

World Trade Center.’’ He said, ‘‘No, Howard, it’s the Pentagon here.’’ My staff, Mr. Speaker, admonishes me to this 

day for not having retained that piece of paper. It would 

have been a nice personal memento. Each time I saw the 

Chief after that, he or I mentioned that exchange between 

us. 

Not unlike the gentleman from Wisconsin, I did not know 

the Chief that intimately, but I think he was an outstanding 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 77 ] 

Chief Justice. Each time I saw him, he or I mentioned that 

exchange between us on 9/11. 

If I could describe him very briefly, I would say a man 

blessed with supreme intellect; a warm, cordial demeanor; 

an outstanding Chief Justice; an outstanding jurist; an outstanding citizen; an outstanding gentleman. He will indeed 

be missed. I join my colleagues in extending our sincere condolences to the family of this great man. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 

the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the 

Subcommittee on the Constitution. 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I want to 

take this opportunity to honor the late Chief Justice WILLIAM HUBBS REHNQUIST. Our country was privileged to have 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST serve as a member of our Supreme 

Court for 33 years, the last 19 years, as we know, as Chief 

Justice. Once considered the maverick lone star Justice for 

his solo dissents, he eventually led a majority which perhaps 

most importantly favored a shift in power from Washington 

back to the States where it belongs. 

Among other challenges he met during his tenure, Chief 

Justice REHNQUIST presided over the impeachment trial of a 

President, President Clinton. Having served as one of the 

House managers myself, I can say that he did so with an 

evenhanded approach, showing fairness and dignity to both 

sides. Also, notably, he was the last member of the Court 

who voted on the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, dissenting 

from that ruling that legalized abortion. I will always appreciate his respect for the value of human life and his commitment to this body and local government’s making decisions 

to protect life, such as the ban on partial-birth abortion. 

Through his opinions, the Chief Justice showed that an active Court could uphold conservative policy through judicial 

restraint. As we begin the process of finding a replacement 

for Chief Justice REHNQUIST, I hope that we will remember 

the important impact of his presence on the Court and his 

commitment to upholding the text and history of the Constitution. 

His strength and dedication to our country could be seen 

most recently when he fulfilled his duties of swearing in our 

43d President for the second time while battling terminal 

thyroid cancer. Let us remember this, I believe, historic 

Chief Justice for his love of the law and his love for his counVerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 78 ] 

try. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family on this 

day. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert). 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, Chief Justice REHNQUIST

was a man of great intellect on a Court that is saturated 

with great intellect. He was also a man of vast common 

sense. Unfortunately, common sense was not so well and 

evenly distributed on the Court. Nonetheless, as a gentle 

man, a man of class, a man of integrity, he brought great 

wisdom and great honor to the Court. As a former prosecutor, a former district judge, a former chief justice of an 

appellate court in Texas, I watched his actions, I read his 

opinions and appreciated his great intellectual honesty and 

appreciation for the Constitution. He was a rare man, a man 

who brought great honor upon the Court, upon this country, 

and upon the Constitution. He will be sorely missed. It is 

with great respect that we extend our sympathy and our sincere best wishes and our prayers to the family and those 

closest to the Chief Justice. We all mourn the loss of a very 

great American. 

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I join all of my colleagues in 

expressing our deepest condolences to the family of Chief 

Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST. I mourn his loss, and I 

thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, 

and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for introducing this resolution. 

I had the privilege yesterday of paying my respects to the 

Chief Justice as he lay in repose at the Great Hall. As I 

prayed, I thought of the great courage he displayed in the 

last few months, and his devotion to duty, even in the face 

of illness. 

As a Nation, today we honor his memory and a lifetime of 

dedicated public service. Chief Justice REHNQUIST was a man 

of great intellect and passion for the Supreme Court and its 

traditions, who was an outstanding leader and administrator 

of the judiciary. He was not only a student of history, an author of books on American history, but he also wrote chapters in our Nation’s history as Chief Justice. 

As a law clerk to a great Justice, Robert Jackson, he 

formed an early appreciation for the institution that he 

would serve in a long and distinguished career. As Justice 

John Paul Stevens noted, Chief Justice REHNQUIST set an exemplary example as leader of the Court. His colleagues uniVerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 79 ] 

formly spoke of his fair and impartial leadership of their proceedings, and of his efforts to prevent disagreements from 

becoming personal. 

His legacy is his steadfast and proud defense of an independent judiciary. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said on 

Sunday: ‘‘He regarded an independent judiciary as our country’s hallmark and pride, and in his annual reports, he constantly urged Congress to safeguard that independence.’’

I hope all of us in Congress will honor his legacy by preserving an independent judiciary. It is our oath of office to 

protect and defend the Constitution of the United States—

and that means protecting an independent judiciary free of 

manipulation and intimidation. 

As the New York Times noted this morning, Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST disapproved of recent congressional attempts to 

‘‘intimidate individual judges, strip federal courts of jurisdiction to decide certain constitutional challenges, and otherwise undermine the constitutional separation of powers and 

checks and balances.’’ In his last annual report, the Chief 

Justice wrote that ‘‘A judge’s judicial acts may not serve as 

a basis for impeachment. Any other rule would destroy judicial independence.’’

An independent judiciary has served for more than two 

centuries as the guardian of our constitutional liberties and 

as the words on the Supreme Court building so nobly state, 

has ensured ‘‘equal justice under law.’’ We must preserve an 

independent judiciary and honor his memory by doing so. 

It is with sadness and respect that I extend my sympathies to Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s family and friends. I 

hope it is a comfort that so many people are praying for 

them at this sad time. He will long be remembered and 

missed. 

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 

pay tribute to one of the most influential jurists of the 20th 

century, Chief Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, the 16th 

Chief Justice of the United States, upon his passing on the 

evening of Saturday, September 3, 2005. 

First appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by President Richard Nixon in 1972, REHNQUIST would 

go on to serve for 33 years, the final 19 of which as Chief 

Justice. During his time on the Court, REHNQUIST earned the 

reputation as a conservative intellectual who would challenge the status quo in the name of judicial restraint and 

federalism principles. He respected the Court’s role as an 

independent body whose role was not to legislate subjectively 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 80 ] 

on the issues of the day; but rather to serve as the objective 

arbiter of the rule of law. 

Notwithstanding the politically charged nature of the 

Court during the latter half of the 20th century, REHNQUIST

was very well liked and respected by all his colleagues, even 

those with whom he frequently disagreed. In fact, Justice 

John Paul Stevens, the Justice with whom REHNQUIST most 

frequently disagreed, commented on ‘‘the efficiency, good 

humor and absolute impartiality that [REHNQUIST had] consistently displayed when presiding at [Supreme Court] Conferences.’’ This ability to work closely with all of his colleagues was a testament to Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s affability, professionalism and evenhandedness. 

Not only will Chief Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST be 

missed as a jurist, he will also be missed as a loving family 

man. Though his wife preceded him in death, he is survived 

by three wonderful children to whom he no doubt passed his 

strong work ethic, patriotism, and deep and abiding respect 

for our American institutions. 

In closing Mr. Speaker, please let me extend my condolences to Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s family and friends on 

their loss. He was a great American and will be missed by 

us all. 

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to 

the order of the House of today, the resolution is considered 

read and the previous question is ordered. 

The question is on the resolution. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kirk). Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman 

from Texas (Mr. Carter) is recognized for 60 minutes as the 

designee of the majority leader. 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the recognition, 

and I rise this evening to discuss a man and a history on the 

bench, judicial bench, that probably will be recorded as one 

of the great careers in the legal profession in the history of 

the United States. I am referring to Chief Justice WILLIAM

REHNQUIST. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 81 ] 

Today we laid to rest Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST, 

who has served this country and served it well for many, 

many years. Chief Justice REHNQUIST is going to be sorely 

missed by the citizens of this country. His wisdom and his 

leadership and his all-around ability to unite and work with 

every faction of the Supreme Court has been an inspiration 

to all of the citizens of this country. 

He served tirelessly with great wisdom, judgment, and 

leadership. He leaves behind a legacy as one of the most influential Chief Justices in our Nation’s history; and today, in 

sadness, we bid him farewell, and we say to Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST, a job well done. 

A native of Milwaukee, WI, WILLIAM REHNQUIST grew up 

in the nearby suburb of Shorewood. His father, the son of 

Swedish immigrant parents, worked as a paper salesman, 

and his mother as a multilingual professional translator. 

I come from a part of Texas which has a large Swedish 

heritage, and I am sure that Chief Justice REHNQUIST got 

his base principles established by that Swedish heritage that 

he grew up in. 

After service in World War II with the Army Air Corps 

from 1943 to 1946, and with the assistance of the GI bill, 

REHNQUIST earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in political science from Stanford University, finishing in 1948. In 

1950 he received a master’s degree in government from Harvard. REHNQUIST later returned to Stanford University to attend law school, where he graduated first in his class in 

1952, even ahead of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, currently 

serving on the Court. He also served as the editor of the Law 

Review. 

REHNQUIST served as a law clerk for Associate Supreme 

Court Justice Robert Jackson both in 1951 and 1952. Following his clerkship, he settled in Phoenix, AZ, where he 

was in private practice from 1953 to 1969. 

In 1964 he also served as a legal advisor to the Barry 

Goldwater Presidential campaign. 

When President Nixon was elected in 1968, REHNQUIST returned to Washington, DC, to serve as Assistant Attorney 

General in the Office of Legal Counsel. In this position 

REHNQUIST served as the Chief Legal Counsel to the Attorney General. He served as Assistant Attorney General in the 

Office of Legal Counsel until 1971, when President Nixon 

nominated him to replace John Marshall Harlan on the Supreme Court. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 82 ] 

During his time in the Court, Chief Justice REHNQUIST authored countless landmark decisions and thought-provoking 

dissents. He carefully reasoned his opinions and insisted 

that the principle of federalism is an integral part of our Nation’s constitutional structure. His opinions recognized that 

our government is one of enumerated rights and dual sovereignty, with certain functions and powers left to the 

States. 

His jurisprudence has shown that the first amendment establishment clause does not dictate government hostility toward religion. Rather, the government should act in a manner which respects our freedom to worship as we please, neither favoring nor disfavoring religion. 

The last 19 years have shown that Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST was a terrific choice to lead the Supreme Court. 

Though some of his colleagues on the Court disagreed with 

him at times, there is no doubt that they admired his strong 

leadership and his likable personality and his ability to build 

a consensus. While always a forceful advocate for his views, 

the Chief Justice consistently strove for consensus on the 

Court and treated his colleagues with courtesy and respect. 

It is thanks to his personal attributes that even in an age 

of 5 to 4 decisions, the Court never descended into bitter infighting. Instead, Chief Justice REHNQUIST led a court united 

by friendship, committed to the law and service to our country. 

One example of Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s commitment to 

the law is his opinion in Dickerson v. The United States. Although a long-time critic of Miranda v. Arizona, REHNQUIST

nevertheless placed his past position aside and wrote an 

opinion in Dickerson effectively affirming Miranda. 

In 1999 Chief Justice REHNQUIST lent his services to the 

Senate when he became only the second Chief Justice in history to preside over a Presidential impeachment in the trial 

of President Clinton. During that difficult time, with the Nation and some of its Senators locked in partisan struggle, the 

Chief Justice’s very presence reminded us of the solemn legal 

duties the Constitution requires of the Senate. 

A historian of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST authored three books on the history of the Court 

and the American legal system. 

As Chief Justice, Mr. REHNQUIST led not only the Supreme 

Court but the entire third branch of government. In that role 

he was an eloquent advocate for a strong and independent 

judiciary. In his annual reports on the judiciary and other 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 83 ] 

public pronouncements, Chief Justice REHNQUIST championed the interest of the judicial branch, earning praise 

from judges of all jurisdictional stripes. 

At all times Chief Justice REHNQUIST performed his duties 

of office with nobility and courage. Even in his recent sickness, he found the strength to administer the oath of office 

to President Bush and to consider the challenging cases that 

came before the Court. 

Peggy Noonan wrote of President Bush’s inauguration: 

And the most poignant moment was the manful WILLIAM REHNQUIST, unable to wear a tie and making his way down the long marble steps to swear 

in the President. The continuation of democracy is made possible by such 

gallantry. 

Our Nation is deeply indebted to WILLIAM REHNQUIST. 

Above all, the rule of law was paramount for Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST. He understood that our government cannot survive without a judiciary that places the rule of law above politics. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST has tirelessly served our Nation 

for the last three decades, and he serves a permanent legacy 

as one of the great Supreme Court Justices. The next Chief 

Justice will surely have big shoes to fill. 

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield as much 

time as he wishes to consume to my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks). 

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and 

thank you. We call you Judge Carter here in this institution. 

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) has 

earned a great deal of respect in this institution because he 

is not only a man who brings judicial experience to this body, 

but he is someone whom we can all trust. He is someone who 

we know has a heart that burns with patriotism, for love for 

his country, for love for his fellow human beings and just a 

commitment to human freedom. 

And I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that it is my precious honor to serve with a man like Judge Carter. You 

know, and perhaps that is all too appropriate tonight as we 

speak of judges, because we talk sometimes of judges legislating from the bench. Maybe Judge Carter comes to this 

body with just the kind of experience he needs to have. But 

we are grateful that he is a man who did not legislate from 

the bench, and that he understands the difference between 

the judiciary and the legislative body. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 84 ] 

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to pay a few 

words tonight of tribute to a towering figure in our country, 

Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST. 

The era of the Rehnquist court has come to a close, and 

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST has stepped quietly into the arms of 

God. Chief Justice REHNQUIST was one of America’s great 

Chief Justices. This Nation has suffered a great loss with his 

passing, and as twilight falls upon this remarkable man’s career, the most notable elements of his extraordinary legacy 

must not be lost to revisionist history, Mr. Speaker, because 

in his tireless defense of the U.S. Constitution, Chief 

REHNQUIST strongly advocated for a judiciary that applies 

the law rather than legislates from the bench. 

We, as Americans, should be very grateful for our Founding Fathers and for the genius of the constitutional system 

that they left to us. It was a framework that protects human 

dignity and individual freedom by enforcing limits on government power. It is incumbent upon us and future generations 

to jealously guard that precious gift bestowed upon us by our 

forebears. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST spent decades on the highest 

court in the land acting as the Constitution’s protector. He 

was a constitutional originalist, defending the process of interpretation of the law that is constrained by the text and 

the original meaning of that great document. 

Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental reason why we, as a 

self-governing people, so carefully put pen to paper to memorialize our Constitution and our laws and our great founding 

documents. They are written words that have become an 

agreement between the people and the government. We 

write it all down to keep a record and an understanding of 

the limits placed on government by the will of the people. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST advanced this understanding 

that at times the Federal courts must enforce limitations on 

Federal power while recognizing the preeminent role of 

democratically elected institutions at both the State and Federal levels. Chief Justice REHNQUIST was a valiant defender 

of States rights in recognition of the superiority of a federalist system when governing peoples of divergent views, divergent faith and cultures. 

He was an influential man in leading the Court back toward the original intent of the Constitution after decades of 

abuse by a liberal activist Court born of the Roosevelt era 

and the New Deal philosophy. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 85 ] 

Mr. Speaker, that New Deal activist Court actually delivered such bizarre rulings as in Wickard v. Filburn, a ruling 

that a man in Ohio who was growing wheat in his own backyard as a means to feed his family and his own livestock had 

somehow violated the Interstate Commerce Clause of the 

U.S. Constitution because the quantity of wheat that he 

grew could have actually been sold. 

Moreover, in their unanimous decision, this liberal activist 

Court affirmed: 

If we assume it is never marketed, homegrown wheat competes with 

wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory 

function quite as definitive and quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. 

Mr. Speaker, what a circuitous and false logic. 

The stage was then set of course by this activist Court for 

massive expansion of Federal power. Year after merciless 

year a liberal Supreme Court, drunk with self-imposed 

power, delivered an unprecedented assault upon the rights of 

the States and of the people. 

During his years on the court, especially his early years, 

Mr. Speaker, Justice REHNQUIST was often called the lone 

dissenter to outrageous decisions, even once receiving a Lone 

Ranger doll awarded by his friends. But yet his adherence to 

the Constitution, faithfully expressed in some of his earliest 

dissents, had great influence upon the Court as evidenced in 

later majority opinions where he was vindicated in his previous conclusions. 

In 1973, when the Supreme Court illegitimately bestowed 

its imprimatur on abortion on demand, it was Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST who wrote a scathing dissent to that majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. He said: 

To reach its results, the Court necessarily has had to find within the 

scope of the 14th amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the amendment. 

How very eloquent. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST was also instrumental in fighting 

back assaults on religious freedom in his efforts to make 

clear that the Constitution ensures government neutrality in 

matters of religious conscience, but not the requirement to 

move religion altogether from the public square. He understood the Constitution. 

In the 1995 case of United States v. Lopez, the Rehnquist 

court marked the first time in over 50 years, Mr. Speaker, 

that the Supreme Court upheld the rights of States, ruling 

against the expansion of Federal power and finding a FedVerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 86 ] 

eral law in violation of that now woefully distorted commerce 

clause of the Constitution. 

Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST was often found standing in the breach of defense of the Constitution, endowing 

this Nation through the years with a noble legacy of resistance to a liberal, activist Court determined to make its own 

law and enact its own agenda. 

Mr. Speaker, he gave the American people his last full 

measure of devotion and stayed at his post through great 

personal pain and sacrifice while he was fighting cancer. To 

the very end, he led a brave and good-natured effort to restore the Supreme Court to its ethical grounding. 

Mr. Speaker, as we bid loving farewell to this stoic champion, I reflect upon the words of Alfred Lord Tennyson in 

tribute: 

Though much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that 

strength in which the old days moved Earth and Heaven; that which we are, 

we are, one equal-temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but 

strong in will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. 

Mr. Speaker, when the final battle with illness and physical weakness came to Chief Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, 

he resolutely remained at his post for his President, for his 

country, and for the future of all mankind. He did not yield. 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that 

very well-presented picture of this great man whom we are 

talking about here tonight. 

The gentleman is right. There was a time when WILLIAM

REHNQUIST stood alone for the rule of law and a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution in a world where lots of 

people that were of the other persuasion actually made jokes 

about him. 

To us who are conservatives and respected his intelligence, 

his wit, his humor, and his bulldoggedness, he was someone 

whom we respected and we loved because when he got ready 

to do his job, he did it. 

One of the things you can look at is, when your colleagues 

who disagree with you have comments that are positive 

about you, I think that speaks a lot about not only his ability 

to stand his ground but his ability to stand it with grace as 

a man who demanded and received respect because of his behavior and because of the way he handled himself. 

Now, Chief Justice William Brennan is well known for the 

way he uses certain language. I am going to read a quote 

from Justice Brennan, and some of it is a little rough, but 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 87 ] 

I think we will enjoy it. He is talking about Justice 

REHNQUIST. 

He is just a breath of fresh air. He is so damn personable. He lays his 

position out, casts his vote. You know exactly where he stands on every 

goddamn case. And he’s meticulously fair in assigning opinions. I can’t begin 

to tell you how much better all of us feel and how fond all of us are of him 

personally. 

Another of his colleagues, Justice Lewis Powell said: 

In many ways he is the best-educated person I have ever worked with, 

very familiar with the classics. He’ll quote them with confidence. Everybody 

agrees generally, I suppose, that he’s brilliant, but he has a good sense of 

humor and he is very generous and he is principled. 

Former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall said, 

‘‘REHNQUIST is a great Chief Justice.’’

All these people were people on the other side of most of 

the issues with WILLIAM REHNQUIST, and yet they speak of 

him as a colleague that they highly respect, and they believe 

he handled himself very well. 

As we are talking about colleagues that we respect, I see 

that we are joined today by the gentleman from east Texas 

(Mr. Gohmert) and also one of my judicial colleagues, coming 

to this august body from the judiciary of Texas, which is getting to be a habit for quite a few of our Congressmen, and 

we are glad to have him. I wonder if the gentleman would 

like to step up and make a statement about the Chief Justice 

and join in a colloquy about the Chief Justice. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an 

honor to be here to talk about the great Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST. 

The gentleman knows, those of us that really believed in 

strict constructionism, that the Founders and writers of the 

Constitution meant what they said, and we know this to be 

a great man, a brilliant man. We do mourn in the passing 

of the Chief Justice, 19 years, as the gentleman pointed out, 

as the Chief Justice, nearly 34 years as a Justice. That is incredible that he maintained his humility, his sense of purpose, his servanthood-type mentality. 

I just want to highlight some things. Under his leadership 

the 10th and 11th amendments began to have more meaning, as they were intended. For so long they had just been 

forgotten. The 10th amendment is not an enumerated power, 

basically it is reserved to the people in the States. 

This is a man who had an intellect unsurpassed by anybody on the Court, past or present, and yet sometimes the 

intellect seems to get in the way and you cannot see the forVerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 88 ] 

est for the trees. He saw the words in simplistic brilliance. 

He knew they meant what they said and he said so. 

In Alden v. Maine, Seminole Tribe v. Florida, U.S. v. 

Printz, U.S. v. Lopez, that was one the Chief penned himself, 

those were cases where he pointed these things out. 

In the Lopez case—it is a great case, one of my favorites—

it had the powerful language that reins in the commerce 

clause power that Congress has. And he explained that commerce clause means what it says. You cannot just keep 

reaching out and say a school is part of interstate commerce. 

That is not the intention and everybody knows it. And he 

helped rein in the Court to where it should be. 

Now, the Chief Justice wrote the 2005 opinion Van Orden 

v. Perry that allowed the State of Texas to continue to display a monument containing, among other things, the Ten 

Commandments. As I sat there and listened to the oral argument before the Supreme Court, and I am a member of the 

Supreme Court bar, and it was an honor and privilege to be 

sitting there, you look up and you see Moses holding the Ten 

Commandment tablets and, here they are trying to decide if 

it is OK for the State of Texas to have a monument to the 

Ten Commandments. 

He understood the hypocrisy. He understood how silly it 

was for people to try to be so intellectual, as a lady back in 

Mount Pleasant where I grew up used to say, ‘‘Some people 

have a Ph.D. but the truth is they are still P-H-U-Ls. They 

are fools.’’ But the Chief Justice had that kind of delightful 

sense of humor as well. 

In the establishment clause he framed the issue very well 

when he said: 

This case, like all establishment clause challenges, presents us with the 

difficulty of respecting both faces. Our institutions presuppose a Supreme 

Being. Yet these institutions must not press religious observances upon 

their citizens. One face looks to the past in acknowledgment of our Nation’s 

heritage, while the other looks to the present in demanding a separation between church and state. Reconciling these two faces requires that we neither abdicate our responsibility to maintain a division between church and 

state nor evince a hostility to religion by disabling the government from, in 

some ways, recognizing our religious heritage. 

At times, like the World War II monument where they just 

did not include the part where Roosevelt said, ‘‘So help us 

God,’’ like that was going to offend somebody, it reminds me, 

I had a summer in the Soviet Union back in college. Stalin 

wrote Trotsky completely out of the history books. That is 

what Chief Justice REHNQUIST was saying. You cannot just 

rewrite history to suit yourself. A Supreme Being, the acVerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 89 ] 

knowledgment of God, has been part of our history, and it 

should not be ignored. 

The Chief quoted a case previously decided by the Court 

in 1952 because he also believed in precedent, like we do, 

like we did as judges; that is what we are supposed to do. 

That has been placed far back as a rule for Justices to follow. 

He understood that just because something, a monument, a 

speech or a display, contains religious symbols or words, it 

does not mean that it violates the establishment clause. 

On the sensitive issue of abortion, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) pointed this out, he was steadfast. He said 

the States have that right. They have the right. So he dissented in Roe v. Wade; and again, he dissented in Parenthood v. Casey. It was clear to the Chief, he believed, that 

States had a right to place restrictions unless they were prevented from doing so by clear language of the Constitution, 

and that simply was not there. 

This same usurpation that Members of Congress just talk 

about daily, this was a man who lived it. He did not believe 

in usurpation of the State and local governments’ rights. 

As I reflect on the Court and awe and reference from such 

a humble man of peace, man of life, I could not help but 

think about the words in the Declaration of Independence. 

We are created equal by our Creator, but it is pretty clear 

a lot of us did not get an equal amount of common sense. 

Everybody on the Supreme Court is brilliant, some of the 

brightest minds in this country; and yet the common sense 

was not equally passed around those nine Justices. So things 

that made complete sense, common sense, were so simple 

that it apparently flew right by some of the pseudo-intellectuals. Here was a man who made the complicated simple, as 

it should have been. He is a man this country owes a great 

debt of gratitude to. He is a man whom I will always have 

great respect for. He is a man who should and could be a 

role model for all Americans. He loved liberty more than self. 

He was a servant, and I thank God for Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST. I thank God for the life he lived. I thank 

God for the life he tried to make sure that others would have 

as well, and our thoughts and prayers will continue to be 

with his loved ones. 

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) for giving 

me an opportunity to share in this tribute. It does weigh 

heavy. It is important that we pay tribute to such a great 

man. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 90 ] 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I was thinking back. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and I both served in the 

Texas judiciary, and I do not know if you were there at the 

time or not and if you remember. At one point in my 22 

years on the bench we had a State judicial conference. Our 

guest speaker was a very personable and intelligent professor of law from the University of Virginia. He actually 

was smart enough to carry two full days of education for 

judges by himself, and you have got to be pretty good to do 

that. 

In one of these sessions, he was analyzing the President’s 

Supreme Court, and this was prior to Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST becoming Chief Justice, when he was Justice 

REHNQUIST, and he was talking about the makeup of the 

U.S. Supreme Court at that point in time. 

He started by tracking the liberals on the Court, which at 

that time was the vast majority; and he talked about their 

capabilities and what direction they wanted to take things. 

Finally he got down and said those of you who are feeling 

very depressed because you do not have a liberal bend toward the law, do not lose heart because you have a champion, and he is equal to the task of all those we have just 

discussed put together in his ability to analyze and take forward his view of the U.S. Constitution. 

He said never sell short WILLIAM REHNQUIST. He knows 

what he is doing; he knows where he wants to take the law; 

and he will take it there. And believe me, as long as it is a 

Republican in office, he should and will be the next Chief 

Justice of the United States, and at that time he will turn 

the corner on many of the decisions which we have found to 

be very strange and not very well directed toward the trial 

courts and the trial courts’ abilities. So do not lose heart. 

You have a champion and he is a white knight and he will 

deliver for the conservative view, the rule-of-law view of the 

Constitution. 

He certainly did. Even though he wrote dissents, sometimes those dissents were so telling that they moved the 

Court slowly. Absolutely a phenomenal intelligence and ability to wordsmith, to word things so that they led us in a direction we needed to go. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, 

I think about one of the last cases the Court decided under 

his Chief Justice administration, the Kelo case. He was in 

the dissent, and it brings to mind the quote, ‘‘The price of 

liberty is eternal vigilance.’’ He did a great deal. He was able 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 91 ] 

to help turn the Court back toward having the Constitution 

mean what it said. 

Yet, here again, the Kelo case, he dissented. He was, as 

you say, very clear, very precise. He had Justices Scalia, 

Thomas, and O’Connor with him in dissenting. They all four 

dissented, and yet a majority of the Court turned around, 

said you know what, we are going back to the day of 

fiefdoms and kings and dukes. So whoever is better friends 

with the ones in power, well, they can just flat take land 

away from those that have, if they are going to promise to 

provide more bounty to the ones in power. Phenomenal decision, just an embarrassment. It should be for everyone who 

sits on the bench anywhere. 

Yet, to the very end, he maintained his integrity, he maintained his principle, he maintained the clarity of mind to understand that not only is that not right, not only is that not 

fair, not only is that un-American, it violates the Constitution. 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, if I can reclaim my time, I noticed that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), our friend, 

has arrived in the Chamber. I would really like to hear what 

he has to say about Chief Justice REHNQUIST. So I yield to 

our colleague and good friend from Iowa. 

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. 

It is an honor for me to stand on the floor here with two of 

the three judges that we have from Texas to help guide us 

down this constitutional path and my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), who is a pure constitutionalist and whom I have the honor to serve with on the 

Subcommittee on the Constitution. 

I have a lot of things to say about Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST, and it is an honor for me to have an opportunity 

to say a few words here, but I would like to first start by recapping some of his life. That is a life just so well-lived and 

so impressive to see what he has done and how he put it together piece by piece, almost without flaw. 

Looking back through that life, we know that we have lost 

a great public servant just last Saturday, and it happened in 

the middle of the disaster down in the gulf coast. So some 

of the media was swamped by those current events. We need 

to raise this up and commemorate this man’s life in a special 

way. 

He was just a month short of his 81st birthday. He battled 

cancer that eventually took his life, but he battled it with the 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 92 ] 

same determination that he battled for principles that we all 

here hold so dear. 

The Chief Justice awed the Nation by never giving up, and 

he never retired. He continued his service to our Nation until 

the very end. He was consistent with his lifetime of service, 

and he also was consistent with the vision of the Founding 

Fathers in that these Justices would be appointed for life. 

They were expected to serve for life or until retirement. He 

served a full lifetime for this country and he was consistent 

and true to his principles all the way through. He was a 

noble and honorable American who was part of the greatest 

generation. Examining his lifetime and career gives us insight into this powerful figure. 

He devoted the majority of his life to serving this country 

in numerous capacities, and I take you back to 1943 to 1946 

where he served in the U.S. Army Air Corps, and there is 

no question he had an incredibly deep intelligence. 

He attended top schools, earning numerous advanced degrees, and was consistently at the top of his class, and unquestionably served as a model for his fellow students. 

He received a B.A. and an M.A. in political science from 

Stanford and another master’s in government from Harvard. 

He graduated first in his class from Stanford in 1952, just 

two places ahead of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. He served 

as a law clerk for Justice Robert Jackson on the Supreme 

Court of the United States in the 1951 and 1952 terms and 

practiced law in Phoenix, AZ, from 1953 until 1969. 

He served as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of 

Legal Counsel from 1969 until 1971. As Assistant Attorney 

General for the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, it was one of his primary functions to screen potential 

Supreme Court candidates. 

When Justice John Marshall Harlan retired, a search went 

out for a replacement, and Attorney General John Mitchell, 

who many of us remember was REHNQUIST’s boss at the 

time, announced he had found someone suitable for the job. 

That person was WILLIAM REHNQUIST whom Nixon appointed to the Court. So at the tender age of 47, which at 

that time was a young age for those appointments, and at 

this time as well, he was confirmed as Associate Justice on 

December 10, 1971, by a vote of 68 to 26. I can only imagine 

there are 26 votes out there that would like to have the opportunity to reconsider that vote. 

His first day on the job was January 7, 1972. He served 

on the Nation’s highest court throughout seven Presidencies. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 93 ] 

In 1986, Chief Justice Warren Burger retired, and President 

Reagan nominated Justice REHNQUIST through to the reins 

of the Court as Chief Justice. There was a confirmation debate and deliberation that ensued. He was confirmed as 

Chief Justice on September 17, 1986, by a vote of 65 to 33, 

another 33 that I believe would like to have a chance to reconsider that vote in light of the historical 33 years of service 

of Chief Justice REHNQUIST. 

We have gotten to know a little bit more about him in the 

last few days. His management style, his effort to be fair, to 

be a giving and forgiving boss, but one that was also a task 

master. As a result he was able to form a cohesive Supreme 

Court body. Even though they had a lot of different personalities and a lot of different kinds of common sense they 

brought to their jurisprudence, Chief Justice REHNQUIST

pulled them together. He left quite a legacy. 

In elementary school, he was asked about his career plans 

by his teacher, and what I think is one of the best prophesies 

I have heard of a career in some time, he replied, ‘‘I’m going 

to change the government.’’ Now when some people say, I am 

going to change the government, they mean they are going 

to grow government or they are going to adapt government 

in light of modern contemporary values. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST did change the government. He 

fought a rear guard action to preserve our Constitution, the 

text of the Constitution. He was a constitutionalist. He was 

a model of judicial restraint. He stayed true to the principle 

and the paramount principle which is strict construction. No 

matter what path the other members of the Court took, at 

the beginning of his career on the Supreme Court, Justice 

REHNQUIST was often a dissenter on a Court filled with judicial activists. He held firm to the guidance that the Constitution itself provides and was eventually joined by allies who 

helped him hold on to some of the meaning of our Constitution’s text. 

He led the Court in preserving States rights, which was 

referenced here, and I appreciate that discussion; but it 

started with U.S. v. Lopez, which struck down a Federal law 

banning guns near local schools. Now I approve of the policy, 

but I more approve of his constitutional decision in dissenting from the Congress’ policy. In U.S. v. Morrison, which 

struck down substantial parts of the Violence Against 

Women Act, again something, a policy, that I approved of, 

but a constitutional decision that I agreed with, and I appreciate that restraint. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 94 ] 

He was not yet there on the Court when Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 established a right to privacy. I wish he had 

been there on that day because that was the day that the 

Court turned into an extreme activist Court, established this 

right to privacy that had never been found in the Constitution before. It was discovered in the emanations and penumbras of the Constitution, meaning that we laypersons could 

not divine that. In fact, maybe some of the judges here could 

not have found that right in the Constitution either. 

He was a staunch defender of the right to life. He authored Rust v. Sullivan, where the government can withhold 

funds from clinics that advocate abortion. He strongly dissented in Roe v. Wade; Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which 

reaffirmed Roe v. Wade; and in Stenberg v. Carrhart, which 

was the constitutional decision that found a right to partial 

birth abortion. Chief Justice REHNQUIST held the line against 

that. He needed more help on the Court. Almost every day 

he was there he needed more help on the Court. He firmly 

rejected the extra constitutional right to privacy that his colleagues created. 

Chief Justice REHNQUIST also did something many shy 

away from today. He recognized that the free exercise clause 

of the first amendment is just as important as the establishment clause. 

He authored the 2002 case that upheld school vouchers in 

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, and strongly dissented in the 

2000 case that held that public schools could not allow organized prayer at sporting events, even if the speaker is a student, and that was Santa Fe Independent School District v. 

Doe. 

He joined the majority in Agostini v. Felton in 1987, which 

allowed public school teachers to provide remedial education 

in parochial schools. 

REHNQUIST dissented from the Court’s 1985 decision that 

moments of silence in public schools are unconstitutional. 

That was Wallace v. Jaffree. 

And in 2003, he strongly dissented in the Court’s affirmative action cases, Strutter and Gratz, which we remember. 

And I sat in on those cases and I remember watching him 

sitting on the bench as he deliberated on those presentations 

and oral arguments. He condemned the racial preference 

policies as a sham and a naked effort to achieve racial balancing. His position in 2003 matched that of the majority he 

joined in the 1978 Bakke case, which held that Federal law 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 95 ] 

does not permit a university’s consideration of race in admissions. 

He was consistent from 1978 until 2003. He was consistent 

until the last day of his life. Chief Justice REHNQUIST opposed the reading of ‘‘public use’’ as being substituted for 

‘‘public benefit’’ in this summer’s Kelo eminent domain decision, which we have had much discussion about here on the 

floor of this Congress. And I think all of us have engaged in 

that. He argued the fifth amendment means what it says. 

And I would support the statement that those 12 words in 

the fifth amendment of the Constitution, ‘‘nor shall private 

property be taken for a public use without just compensation,’’ are some of the clearest and cleanest words that we 

have in the entire Constitution, yet the majority of the 

Court, with Chief Justice REHNQUIST and Justice O’Connor 

dissenting, held otherwise. I do not believe that the fifth 

amendment could be written more precisely, more concisely, 

and I would challenge the attorneys that we have across this 

country to write that better than it has been written. 

Both the personal and case histories I have discussed here 

show that Chief Justice REHNQUIST, whose passing we 

mourn, whose legacy we celebrate tonight, was a man of 

great principle and honor. I firmly believe that without Chief 

Justice REHNQUIST’s presence on the Court for the last 33 

years, our Constitution would be unrecognizable. It is to him 

that we owe our deepest thanks for preserving our Constitution for future Americans to fully restore to its original text. 

I would say that there was a time in my life when I had 

the privilege and honor to sit in the presence of this great 

man. I am not going to pose the question here into this 

Record tonight, but I posed a question to Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST that caused him to deliberate for quite some 

time, and he finally answered, ‘‘I am going to elect not to answer that question.’’ Now, I do not believe he elected not to 

answer the question because he did not know the answer. I 

believed he elected not to answer the question because of 

how the answer would reflect on the other members of the 

Court. 

He had an ability to do a calculation on a question or a 

problem and boil it down to the root quicker than anyone 

whom I have watched process these heavy legal questions. 

He was a giant of a man. He lived a life that was well 

lived, and we are here to celebrate tonight and give great 

honor to a man who hung on to this Constitution as dearly 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 96 ] 

and as strongly as anyone has been charged with when they 

take the oath to uphold this Constitution. 

It has been an honor to be a citizen of this country for the 

33 years that he has served us so well. It has been an honor 

to have worked with him, to have been in his presence, and 

to deliberate with him on those occasions, and an honor to 

be in the courtroom to hear the oral arguments and an honor 

to read the opinions that he has given us. He has left us a 

legacy. 

He has also left us a duty and a responsibility to pick up 

this ball now, and where he has held onto this Constitution, 

it is our job to carry forward and reestablish the text of this 

Constitution that he held so dear, and that we all hold so 

dear. 

Our prayers go out to the family. Our prayers of gratitude 

for the lifetime, the legacy of Chief Justice WILLIAM

REHNQUIST will continue into the future. 

As I say, it has been an honor to be serving in this government with a man like that, and I hope and pray that we will 

be able to carry on the legacy that he left for us. 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 

comments, and I was thinking as he was speaking, and he 

gave an excellent presentation of the Chief Justice, but we 

are joined here in the Chamber today by two men who basically made their entire life a part of dealing in the justice 

system both as members of the bar, members of the bench, 

and who also built, basically from scratch, from what I know 

of both of them, very successful businesses, overcoming insurmountable obstacles. And then, when they had the ability 

to continue to go out and make those businesses thrive, they 

volunteered to come to Washington and become a part of the 

justice system, a part of the legislative branch of our government. This defines the kind of man that Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST personally reached out to, kind of everybody. 

He wrote the opinions of those of us who honor our heritage, who honor the language that our forefathers wrote into 

the Constitution and think that if that is what it says, that 

is what it says. It does not take a genius to read the paper 

and say that is what it says. And with all his skill and writing ability, really you can cut it down to the fact that that 

is the way he looked at it. He said, Wait a minute, let us 

read the Constitution. That is what it says. It speaks volumes that Chief Justice REHNQUIST was able to do that in 

such a talented manner and in such a manner that challenged legal scholars across the country. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 97 ] 

One of his opponents from Harvard University made a 

comment about him, something to the effect that no matter 

what you thought of him, whether you agreed with his ideology, he said, I have to give REHNQUIST an A. That is the 

kind of talent he had. He could take the causes that those 

of us working in the trenches, the trial judges, and we liked 

to say there is a difference between trial judges and appellate judges. We shoot from the hip and make those decisions 

and then they get to grade our papers. Of course, Judge 

Gohmert has been both, so he has experience in both those 

areas, but I am just an old trial judge. 

Mr. GOHMERT. If the gentleman will yield, I might just 

say that it is easier to grade papers after people have shot 

from the hip. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, at least you know they are shooting 

from the hip. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But we all loved, I think, his simplicity. 

Even toward the end of this great man’s life, I remember 

seeing on television the reporters all after him, asking are 

you going to resign or are you going to retire? And he came 

back, this man of brilliance yet simplicity, and said, ‘‘It is for 

me to know and for you to find out.’’ That is the kind of man 

he was even to the end, cute, humble, and a lot of fun. 

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, if the judges would yield, 

there is another anecdote that is worth mentioning, and I do 

not know if it has been passed along here tonight, but I 

think it demonstrates his sense of humor. And sometimes it 

was self-deprecating and sometimes it was succinct. 

Several years after he had been appointed to the bench, he 

was asked what it is like to serve here on the Supreme 

Court. He said, ‘‘Well, you spend the first 2 years here wondering how you got here, and the rest of your time wondering how they got here.’’

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 

sharing that, and I now yield to my colleague, the gentleman 

from Arizona (Mr. Franks). 

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I think my primary 

reason for being here tonight was just to not let this man’s 

towering contribution to the judicial process slip away into 

history. There is an old quote by Dostoyevski. He said, ‘‘He 

who controls the present, controls the past. And he who controls the past, controls the future.’’

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 98 ] 

Of course, as somebody was saying, there are a lot of revisionists out there trying to rewrite history in order to affect 

the future, but this man’s history is very important to our 

country. I will make a prediction tonight that a lot of the decisions, where he found himself in dissent, in the next 20 or 

30 years will turn in the other direction, and we will see that 

this man was before his time. 

There is a saying that if you fail without succeeding, if you 

struggle without succeeding, it is so someone else might succeed after you. And if you succeed without struggling, which 

I think some of our modern-day Justices are going to do, it 

is because someone has struggled and succeeded before you. 

This man, I believe, is going to be vindicated in society, because he did not find a lot of these hidden things that the 

gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) talked about. 

We have seen judges say that somehow the words in the 

Pledge of Allegiance, ‘‘under God,’’ might be unconstitutional; 

or that it is unconstitutional to protect a 9-year-old girl from 

Internet pornography, or it is unconstitutional to protect an 

unborn child from partial-birth abortion. With regard to all 

of these insane notions, he did not see them. 

One woman said, Maybe these judges who find all these 

things ought to be out looking for Osama bin Laden if they 

are that good at finding things that are not there. 

This judge saw the Constitution for what it was. He did 

not try to make a new revolution. He simply tried to affirm 

the one we already had. I think that tonight we celebrate the 

life of a man who many Justices of the future will stand on 

his shoulders and look back and say, you know, Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST was right, Chief Justice REHNQUIST was correct. 

The ship of state turns slowly sometimes, but this man 

had his hand on the rudder long before the rest of us even 

knew. And I again just wanted to join with all of my colleagues and honor this man’s life. 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 

comments, and let me say this. As we discuss Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST and what he has accomplished and the legacy he 

brings to the United States of America, we are doing this on 

the very eve of the beginning of the new selection of a Chief 

Justice of the United States. It is, I think, appropriate to realize that as Chief Justice REHNQUIST was serving 33 years 

on the highest court in this land, he also was writing history 

books to record history. 

He knew just what my colleague said, the gentleman from 

Arizona (Mr. Franks), that it is important that we remember 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 99 ] 

the history as it was, not revise it to make it what we want 

it to be. So he wrote three history books about the Court so 

we could say, Well, what does history tell us about that 

event at that time? And so the Chief Justice, the great researcher, has given us the research and a direction on the 

history as it pertains to the Court, something the other Justices of the Court that will follow can turn to as additional 

information to get a picture of where the Court was coming 

from as it made rulings. 

It is very important, and I hope our colleagues in the Senate, as they look at the confirmation of Judge Roberts, are 

looking at the history of the U.S. Supreme Court and the legacy of WILLIAM REHNQUIST. 

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, there is a point that 

comes to mind, and I can get it quickly made. This right to 

privacy that was in the emanation’s penumbras, in the shadows, was something that was never recognized by Chief Justice REHNQUIST. That right to privacy will be presented to 

Judge Roberts, and he will be asked. In fact, he will be demanded to recognize that right to privacy as a condition of 

his confirmation over in the Senate, a very right to privacy 

that Chief Justice REHNQUIST never recognized. 

That is how they are going to try to amend the Constitution and the confirmation process over in the Senate. I think 

it is important to recognize that the legacy of Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST should be preserved in the confirmation process 

in the Senate as well. 

Mr. CARTER. I wonder how you can be unqualified to 

serve by not recognizing that right, when there are members 

sitting on the Court at this time who do not recognize that 

right. 

The point of a Supreme Court is that there are multiple 

points of view, and you should not be requiring only one 

point of view on the U.S. Supreme Court. To make a confirmation hearing dependent upon one point of view absolutely flies in the face of justice in America. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing from 

my colleague from Iowa regarding his saying in elementary 

school that he wanted to change the government. I think 

about the example of the emperor who had no clothes, yet all 

the crowd got swept up in seeing clothes that were not there 

and saying, Oh, are the clothes not beautiful? They were not 

there. Chief Justice REHNQUIST was one of those if he had 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 100 ] 

to stand alone and say they are not there, there are no 

clothes, he did it. 

Just in conclusion, I think about the end of Frost’s poem: 

Two roads diverged in the woods for Chief Justice 

REHNQUIST many years ago, and he took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference. It has, in fact, 

changed a Nation for the good. 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank 

the gentleman. One of the downfalls of appearing in the Congress with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and the 

gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) and the gentleman 

from Iowa (Mr. King) is these guys are great in quoting all 

these things off the top of their head, and that is hard for 

an old trial judge who is just used to shooting from the hip. 

I do enjoy the wonderful quotes these guys pull out and 

quote them right. It is a blessing to have them as Members 

of our Congress. 

Mr. Speaker, you have been very patient today as we 

honor our passing Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as we 

laid him to rest today. We thank you for your patience in allowing us to express our opinions about him. 

THURSDAY, September 8, 2005 

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, as we honor Chief Justice 

WILLIAM REHNQUIST’s life, we pause to reflect on his service 

to our country, a record of service that was colored with 

honor, dignity, and distinction. 

Many commentators are focused on his success ushering in 

a quiet, conservative revolution on the Court. Another remarkable facet of REHNQUIST’s legacy, however, is found in 

a much more understated role of the Chief Justice, that of 

the judiciary’s chief advocate and ambassador. The hallmark 

of his style, no matter how volatile the issue or context, from 

abortion to impeachment, was one of respectful debate, a 

quality that garnered an enormous degree of loyalty and respect among his fellow Justices, litigants, and Court watchers. 

But the Chief Justice not only worked to foster respect and 

collegiality within the walls of the Court; he did more. For 

the last 2 years of his tenure, REHNQUIST turned his focus 

to a matter that has also been a source of growing concern 

for many, the deterioration in relations between the ConVerDate jan 13 2004 15:12 Mar 26, 2008 Jkt 023500 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6688 Sfmt 6688 C:\DOCS\PRINTED\23500.TXT CRS1 PsN: SKAYNE
(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 101 ] 

gress and the courts. As the Chief Justice reported in his 

year-end analysis of the state of the judiciary, and again in 

his customarily understated way, ‘‘During the last year, it 

seems that the traditional interchange between the Congress 

and the Judiciary broke down.’’

This hostility long preceded congressional intervention in 

the tragic case of Terri Schiavo and has taken many forms 

beyond the most simple and pernicious, that of defunding the 

courts. It includes measures stripping the courts of jurisdiction to hear particular cases, condemning the courts for the 

citation of certain precedent, and splitting circuits out of a 

dislike for their jurisprudence. 

One constitutional amendment would even change the 

Framers’ design-of-life tenure for lower Federal courts and 

subject judges to costly campaigns and retention elections. If 

Members think political campaigning by elected officials and 

the growth of 527 organizations and other independent expenditure efforts are already out of control, just imagine adding negative attack ads in judicial races around the country: 

‘‘Call Judge Jones and tell him to stop coddling criminals’’ or 

‘‘Call Judge Smith and ask him why he denied relief to widows and orphans.’’ One can just imagine what the judicial 

ads might look like. 

Even though many of these legislative initiatives have yet 

to pass, we are already witnessing the direct consequences to 

our court system. In recent years there has been a marked 

decline in the level of interest and service on the bench 

among highly qualified attorneys. Judges are leaving the 

bench to return to private practice. Reckless talk in the 

House Committee on the Judiciary about the potential impeachment of judges not for unethical conduct but out of a 

disagreement with their decisions has only added to the 

chilling effect on the courts and people’s willingness to serve. 

Ultimately, this protracted war against the judicial branch 

will only denigrate both Congress and the courts. This is not 

the first time relations between the two branches have been 

at a dangerously low ebb, nor was REHNQUIST the first Chief 

Justice to express alarm. Former Chief Justice Charles 

Evans Hughes admonished the Congress of his day that ‘‘in 

the great enterprise of making democracy workable, we are 

all partners. One member of our body politic cannot say to 

another ‘I have no need of thee.’ ’’

Increasingly, however, the Congress has been saying just 

that, and REHNQUIST was among the first to spot the danger. 

When the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and I 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 102 ] 

formed a bipartisan caucus to improve relations with the 

courts, Chief Justice REHNQUIST was the first to sit down 

with us. We invited him to meet with our caucus. He came 

to the Hill, sat down with us, and it was a very important 

meeting and interchange. After presiding over the High 

Court for the last two decades, he was clearly disturbed at 

the turn of events in relations between the branches and the 

resulting attack upon the independence of the judiciary. 

Why does it matter if the Congress and the courts are at 

war? Because if the separation of powers has eroded and an 

independent judiciary is impaired, decisions become increasingly politicized. Public confidence in the rule of law erodes 

and people begin taking law into their own hands: 174 years 

ago, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall warned, 

‘‘The greatest scourge an angry Heaven ever inflicted upon 

an ungrateful and sinning people was an ignorant, a corrupt, 

or a dependent judiciary.’’

During the confirmation hearings of John Roberts next 

week, there will be a great many important questions asked 

about Roberts’ judicial philosophy, his views on individual 

rights and freedoms. But I hope that at least one Senator 

will ask whether Roberts, a prodigy of and potential successor to REHNQUIST, will aspire to succeed not only his mentor’s conservative revolution but his all too solitary work to 

repair the damage to the historic and vital comity between 

the Congress and the courts. 

TUESDAY, September 20, 2005 

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 

from Arizona (Mr. Franks) for yielding to me. It is an honor 

for me to join him here on the floor again tonight. The last 

time, as I recall, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), and also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and I were here together 

was to celebrate the life of Chief Justice WILLIAM

REHNQUIST. That was a somber moment, a moment of reverence and respect and reminiscing; but also, we came away 

from that evening and we came away from that week with 

a sense of the legacy that was left by the years on the bench 

by Chief Justice REHNQUIST. . . . 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

A Service of Celebration 

And Commitment to God 

Of the life of 

William Hubbs Rehnquist 

Chief Justice of the United States 

1924–2005 

St. Matthew’s Cathedral 

1725 Rhode Island Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 

Wednesday, September 7th 

2:00 p.m. 

The Reverend George W. Evans, Jr., D.D. 

The Reverend Jeffrey M. Wilson 

Lutheran Church of the Redeemer, McLean, VA 

The Reverend Jan P. Lookingbill 

Emmanuel Lutheran Church, Bethesda, MD 

Theodore Cardinal McCarrick 

Archbishop of Washington 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 104 ] 

The Service 

I. Prelude 

Selections from ‘‘Water Music’’—Handel 

‘‘Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee’’—Beethoven 

‘‘Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring’’—Bach 

‘‘How Lovely Is Thy Dwelling Place’’—Brahms 

II. The Procession (Please stand) 

‘‘God of Our Fathers’’

(At the end of the procession, please be seated) 

Solo: ‘‘Amazing Grace’’ Denny Clark, tenor 

III. The Call To Worship: 

Welcome Remarks: Theodore Cardinal McCarrick 

(Please stand) 

Pastor Wilson: Blessed be the God and Father of 

our Lord Jesus Christ, the source of all Mercy and 

the God of all consolation. He comforts us in all our 

sorrows so that we can comfort others in their sorrows with the consolation we ourselves have received 

from God. 

Congregation: Thanks be to God. 

Hymn: ‘‘A Mighty Fortress Is Our God’’ Congregation 

EIN’ FESTE BURG. 8 7, 87, 6 6, 6 6, 7. 

Broadly, with vigor 

1. A mighty fortress is our God, A bulwark never failing; 

Our helper he amid the flood Of mortal ills prevailing: 

For still our ancient foe Doth seek to work us woe; 

His craft and power are great, And, armed with cruel 

hate, 

On earth is not his equal. 

2. Did we in our own strength confide Our striving would 

be losing; 

Were not the right Man on our side, The Man of God’s 

own choosing. 

Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is he; 

Lord Sabaoth his Name, From age to age the same, 

And he must win the battle. 

3. And though this world, with devils filled, Should threaten to undo us; 

We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us: 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 105 ] 

The prince of darkness grim, We tremble not for him; 

His rage we can endure, For lo! his doom is sure, 

One little word shall fell him. 

4. That word above all earthly powers, No thanks to them, 

abideth; 

The Spirit and the gifts are ours Through him who with 

us sideth: 

Let goods and kindred go, This mortal life also; 

The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still, 

His kingdom is forever. 

Martin Luther, 1483–1546 

Tr. Frederick H. Hedge, 1805–1890 

Based on Psalm 46 

Pastor: When we were baptized in Christ Jesus, we 

were baptized into his death. We were buried therefore with him by Baptism into death, so that as 

Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the 

Father, we too might live a new life. For if we have 

been united with him in a death like his, we shall 

certainly be united with him in a resurrection like 

his. 

IV. The Liturgy of the Word: 

The Kyrie: 

Cantor: In peace let us pray to the Lord. 

Congregation: Lord, have mercy. 

Cantor: For the peace from above and for our salvation, let us pray to the Lord. 

Congregation: Lord have mercy. 

Cantor: For the peace of the whole world, for the 

well-being of the Church of God, and for the unity of 

all, let us pray to the Lord. 

Congregation: Lord have mercy. 

Cantor: For this holy house, and for all who offer 

here their worship and praise, let us pray to the 

Lord. 

Congregation: Lord have mercy. 

Cantor: Help, save, comfort, and defend us, gracious 

Lord. 

Congregation: Amen. 

The Gloria: 

Cantor: Glory to God in the highest, and peace to 

his people on earth. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 106 ] 

Congregation: Lord God, heavenly King, almighty 

God and Father: 

We worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you 

for your glory. 

Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, 

Lord God, Lamb of God: You take away the sin of the 

world; 

Have mercy on us. 

You are seated at the right hand of the Father; receive our prayer. 

For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the 

Lord, 

You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the 

Holy Spirit, 

In the glory of God the Father. Amen. 

Pastor: The Lord be with you. 

Congregation: And also with you. 

Pastor: Let us pray. 

V. The Readings: (Please be seated) 

Psalms 61: 1–5 V. Samuel Laurin, III 

Isaiah 40: 25–31 Pastor Lookingbill 

‘‘Faith of Our Fathers’’ Choir 

Remembrance: Justice Sandra Day O’Connor 

Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: We are here to 

celebrate the life of a great Chief Justice, and to thank God 

for blessing this country with his presence for 80 years. The 

last 33 of those 80 years were spent at the U.S. Supreme 

Court—14 as an Associate Justice, 19 as Chief Justice. 

I met BILL REHNQUIST when I was a freshman at Stanford 

University in 1946. He was serving as a ‘‘hasher’’ at my dormitory during the evening meal. He amazed all the young 

women by carrying such heavy loads of dishes on his tray. 

I guess that is how he learned to carry all those heavy loads 

in all the years that followed. 

He and I enrolled at Stanford Law School in 1950. He was 

clearly the brightest student in our class—always prepared 

and always willing to express his views when asked. He had 

conservative views backed up by brilliant analyses. Outside 

class we enjoyed bridge games, charades, and occasional 

movies. BILL was always fun to be around and he had a fine 

sense of humor. Little did either of us expect to serve on the 

U.S. Supreme Court one day. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 107 ] 

Our class was very excited when he was selected by Justice Robert Jackson to be a law clerk at the Supreme Court. 

At that time not many Stanford law graduates were invited 

to clerk at the Court. 

BILL married another undergraduate classmate of mine, 

Nan Cornell. She also was very bright and engaging. After 

finishing his law clerk’s position, BILL and Nan settled in 

Phoenix. They wanted a city that was both the political and 

economic center of the State, and Phoenix suited them. They 

became parents of Janet, Jim, and Nancy. When John and 

I moved to Phoenix after John’s military service, we enjoyed 

seeing the Rehnquists on a regular basis. We had a play 

reading group, and a bridge group. We went on family desert 

outings. 

BILL was a successful lawyer in a civil practice, and was 

active in the Arizona Republican Party. When he was offered 

the post of Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel in 1969, the Rehnquists moved to northern Virginia and 

their children entered the public school system. Two years 

later President Nixon appointed BILL REHNQUIST as an Associate Justice of the Court. I came to Washington to attend 

the joint investiture of Justice Lewis Powell and Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST on January 7, 1972. It was a proud and 

poignant moment. 

As a member of the Court, Justice REHNQUIST found himself frequently in dissent in the post-Earl Warren years. In 

1986 President Reagan wisely nominated Justice REHNQUIST

for Chief Justice upon the retirement of Chief Justice Warren Burger, and as Chief, BILL REHNQUIST served ably both 

as an administrator and as a member of the Court. He had 

no pretenses at all and was always friendly to Justices and 

staff alike. His sense of humor never left him and he could 

break up a tense moment with a funny story, quip, or poem. 

On the last day of our public session, June 27, the Chief 

noted the seven separate opinions issued in a contentious 

Ten Commandments case and joked, ‘‘I didn’t know we had 

so many Justices.’’ It drew hearty laughter from the spectators. He never twisted arms to get a vote on a case. He relied on the power of his arguments and he was always fair. 

Occasionally he surprised us. One day as we gathered in 

our Conference Room to shake hands before going in the 

Courtroom, he appeared with four gold stripes on the sleeve 

of his robe. We thought it must be a joke. ‘‘Where did those 

come from?,’’ we asked. ‘‘Oh, I had the seamstress sew on 

one stripe for every 5 years I have been on the Court,’’ he 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 108 ] 

said. ‘‘Just like the Lord Chief Justice in Gilbert and Sullivan.’’ And the stripes stayed. He could have added more 

but never did. 

Despite the workload, the Chief authored four fine books 

and a number of articles. These works also deserved some 

gold stripes. He was a first-rate historian and wrote with an 

engaging style. 

I grew up on a ranch. The really expert riders of horses 

let the horse know immediately who is in control but then 

they guide the horse with loose reins and very seldom use 

the spurs. So it was with our Chief. He guided us with loose 

reins and used the spurs only rarely to get us up to speed 

with our work. Efficiency was very important to the Chief. 

His annual reports on the state of the judiciary were masterful. His handling of the impeachment proceedings against 

President Clinton was also expert. He presided over all our 

Conferences with dispatch. He did not encourage longwinded 

debates among us, but he gave each Justice time to say what 

was needed. Because be was concise he thought we should 

be also. 

Thanks to him relations among the members of the Court 

have been remarkably harmonious considering our different 

viewpoints. He has enabled the Court to serve the role envisioned for it by the Framers of the Constitution. He lived his 

life fully—enjoying his family, his beloved wife, Nan, his 

three fine children, and his grandchildren. He was a faithful 

member of the Lutheran Church—no doubt due to his Swedish ancestry. He was a beloved friend and colleague, and a 

public servant in the finest tradition. He was courageous at 

the end of his life, just as he was throughout his life. And 

he never lost his sense of humor. As he was being examined 

in the emergency room of a local hospital in the final week 

of his life, the examining physician asked who was his primary care doctor. ‘‘My dentist,’’ he struggled to say, with a 

twinkle in his eye. 

The Chief was a betting man. He enjoyed making wagers 

about most things: The outcome of football or baseball 

games, elections, even the amount of snow that would fall in 

the courtyard at the Court. If you valued your money, you 

would be careful about betting with the Chief. He usually 

won. I think the Chief bet he could live out another term despite his illness. He lost that bet, as did all of us, but he won 

all the prizes for a life well lived. 

We love you, Chief. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 109 ] 

Now, as the Chief would say, ‘‘Counsel, the red light is on. 

Your time is up.’’

Remembrance: President George W. Bush 

President George W. Bush: Jim and Janet and Nancy; 

members of the Rehnquist family; colleagues of the Chief 

Justice. This afternoon the people of the United States 

mourn the passing of the leader of a branch of the government, the eight Justices of the Court pay final homage to 

their Chief and friend, and a loving family bids farewell to 

a kind and gentle soul. 

WILLIAM HUBBS REHNQUIST accomplished many things in 

his good life, and rose to high places. And we remember the 

integrity and the sense of duty that he brought to every task 

before him. That character was clear in the young man of 18 

who signed up for the Army Air Corps during the Second 

World War. The Nation saw that character in his more than 

three decades of service on our highest court. And the Nation 

saw it again last January 20, when the Chief Justice made 

his way onto the inaugural platform. Many will never forget 

the sight of this man, weakened by illness, rise to his full 

height and say in a strong voice, ‘‘Raise your right hand, Mr. 

President, and repeat after me.’’

It was more than a half-century ago that BILL REHNQUIST

first came to the Supreme Court as a law clerk. As he would 

later recount the story, he made that trip from Milwaukee, 

in the middle of the winter in an old blue Studebaker with 

no heater. He recalled that as he began the journey, he patted that car and thought, don’t let me down, baby. 

After a year-and-a-half in the Chambers of Justice Robert 

Jackson, BILL REHNQUIST left Washington, DC, and headed 

for Phoenix with an even greater love for the law—and with 

something more: a beautiful fiance named Natalie Cornell. 

She would share his walk in life for nearly 40 years. All who 

knew the Chief know how he cherished Nan and their time 

together, and how much he missed his wife in the years 

without her. 

In every chapter of his life, WILLIAM REHNQUIST stood 

apart for his powerful intellect and clear convictions. In a 

profession that values disciplined thought and persuasive 

ability, a talent like his gets noticed in a hurry. Still in his 

forties, he became the 100th Justice of the Supreme Court, 

and one of the youngest in modern times. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 110 ] 

After he moved to the center chair, WILLIAM REHNQUIST

led the Court for nearly two decades, and earned a place 

among our greatest Chief Justices. He built consensus 

through openness and collegiality. He was a distinguished 

scholar of the Constitution and a superb administrator of the 

judicial conference. He understood the role of a judge and the 

place of courts in our constitutional system. He was prudent 

in exercising judicial power, and firm in defending judicial 

independence. 

On the bench and as a leader of the Federal courts, Chief 

Justice REHNQUIST was always a calm and steady presence. 

In his thinking and in his bearing, he personified the ideal 

of fairness, and people could sense it. Inside the Court, no 

man could have been a finer steward of the institution, its 

customs, and its history. 

As long as WILLIAM REHNQUIST was presiding, colleagues 

and advocates knew that the proceedings would be orderly, 

on time, businesslike, and occasionally humorous. Once during an oral argument, a lawyer criticized his opponent’s position by saying, ‘‘I doubt very much it will fool this Court.’’

The Chief Justice replied, ‘‘Don’t overestimate us.’’

In his time on the Court, WILLIAM REHNQUIST served with 

16 other Justices, and by all accounts, each one of his colleagues regarded the man with respect and affection. Justice 

William Brennan once said to a visitor, ‘‘I cannot begin to 

tell you . . . how fond all of us are of him personally.’’

Throughout this city of government, people saw WILLIAM

REHNQUIST in that same way. He carried himself with dignity, but without pretense. Like Ronald Reagan, the President who elevated him to Chief Justice, he was kindly and 

decent, and there was not an ounce of self-importance about 

him. It is a rare man who can hold a prominent position in 

Washington, DC, for more than 30 years and leave behind 

only good feelings and admiration. That’s what WILLIAM

REHNQUIST did. 

His law clerks knew him as a demanding boss who pressed 

them, as one said, to ‘‘read carefully, write clearly, and think 

hard.’’ But the clerks also became an extension of the Chief’s 

family, joining him for walks around the Capitol, or for lunch 

or dinner, or games of tennis or charades. His clerks remember those times with fondness. And even more, they remember his vast store of knowledge and his daily example of 

clear thinking and character. To work beside WILLIAM

REHNQUIST was to learn how a wise man looks at the law 

and how a good man looks at life. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 111 ] 

The Chief Justice was devoted to his public duties, but not 

consumed by them. He was a renaissance man, a man who 

adored his family, a man who always kept things in balance. 

He read works of history and wrote a few fine ones of his 

own. He knew how to paint, and he knew how to win at 

bridge and poker. He had a passion for the classics, for astronomy, and for college basketball. He enjoyed music, and 

having stood next to him during the national anthem, I can 

tell you the man loved to sing. 

WILLIAM REHNQUIST often reminded young lawyers of the 

ancient insight that time is the most valuable thing a man 

can spend. He spoke with feeling about the need to choose 

wisely, doing your job well, and never forgetting the other 

important things that also take time: love for one another, 

being a good parent to a child, service to your community. 

He might have added the importance of being a loving 

grandfather, because he was clearly that, too. 

The 16th Chief Justice of the United States was given 80 

years of life. He filled those years with purpose, a gracious 

spirit, and faithful service to God and country to the very 

end. He now goes to his rest beside his beloved Nan. And 

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST leaves behind the gratitude of our 

whole Nation. We’re proud of our Chief Justice, and America 

honors his memory. May God bless him. 

Hymn: ‘‘America The Beautiful’’ Congregation 

(Please stand) 

O beautiful for spacious skies, For amber waves of grain, 

For purple mountain majesties Above the fruited plain! 

America! America! God shed his grace on thee 

And crown thy good with brotherhood From sea to shining 

sea. 

O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife. 

Who more than self their country loved And mercy more 

than life! 

America! America! May God thy gold refine 

Till all success be nobleness And every gain divine! 

O beautiful for patriot dream That sees beyond the years 

Thine alabaster cities gleam Undimmed by human tears! 

America! America! God shed his grace on thee 

And crown they good with brotherhood From sea to shining 

sea! 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 112 ] 

(Please be seated) 

Poetry Reading: Donald C. McLean 

Remembrance: James Cornell Rehnquist 

Remembrance: Nancy Rehnquist Spears 

Remembrance: Natalie Ann Rehnquist Lynch 

The Gospel: Matthew 5: 1–16 Pastor Lookingbill 

(Please stand) 

Hymn: ‘‘Guide Me O Thou Great Jehovah’’ Congregation 

CWM RHONDDA. 8 7, 8 7, 8 7. John Hughes, 1873–1932 

Broadly, in moderate time 

1. Guide me, O thou great Jehovah, 

Pilgrim through this barren land; 

I am weak, but thou art mighty, 

Hold me with thy powerful hand; 

Bread of heaven, Bread of heaven, 

Feed me till I want no more, 

Feed me till I want no more. 

2. Open now the crystal fountain 

Whence the healing stream doth flow; 

Let the fire and cloudy pillar 

Lead me all my journey through; 

Strong deliverer, Strong deliverer, 

Be thou still my strength and shield, 

Be thou still my strength and shield. Amen. 

3. When I tread the verge of Jordan, 

Bid my anxious fears subside; 

Death of death and hell’s destruction, 

Land me safe on Canaan’s side; 

Songs of praises 

I will ever give to thee. Amen. 

William Williams, 1717–1791 

Tr. from the Welsh by the author 

and Peter Williams, 1722–1796 

Sermon: Pastor Evans 

Hallelujah (’’Messiah’’)—Handel Choir 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 113 ] 

VI. The Creed: 

Pastor: God has made us through our Baptism into 

Christ. Living together in trust and hope, we confess 

our faith. 

Congregation: (Please stand) 

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of 

heaven and earth. 

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. 

He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and 

born of the virgin Mary. 

He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, 

and was buried. 

He descended into hell. On the third day He rose 

again. 

He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right 

hand of the Father. 

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic 

Church, 

The communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, 

The resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. 

Amen. 

VII. The Prayers: 

The Pastor shall lead the congregation in prayer. The 

congregation is invited to sit or kneel as they feel comfortable. 

The Lord’s Prayer. 

VIII. The Commendation: The Clergy 

(Please be seated) 

Pastor: Into your hands, O merciful Savior, we commend your servant WILLIAM HUBBS REHNQUIST. Acknowledge, we humbly beseech you, a sheep of your 

own fold, a lamb of your own flock, a sinner of your 

own redeeming. Receive him into the arms of your 

mercy, into the blessed rest of everlasting peace, and 

into the glorious company of the saints in light. 

Congregation: Amen. 

Pastor: Let us go forth in peace. 

Congregation: In the name of Christ. Amen. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 114 ] 

IX. The Benediction: (Please rise) 

Hymn: ‘‘For All the Saints’’ Congregation 

1. For all the saints who from their labors rest, 

all who by faith before the world confessed, 

your name, O Jesus, be forever blest. 

Alleluia! Alleluia! 

2. You were their rock, their fortress, and their might; 

you, Lord, their captain in the well-fought fight; 

you, in the darkness drear, their one true light. 

Alleluia! Alleluia! 

3. Oh, may your soldiers, faithful, true, and bold, 

fight as the saints who nobly fought of old 

and win with them the victor’s crown of gold. 

Alleluia! Alleluia! 

4. Oh, blest communion, fellowship divine, 

we feebly struggle, they in glory shine; 

yet all are one within your great design. 

Alleluia! Alleluia! 

5. And when the strife is fierce, the warfare long, 

steals on the ear the distant triumph song, 

and hearts are brave again and arms are strong. 

Alleluia! Alleluia! 

6. The golden evening brightens in the west; 

soon, soon to faithful warriors comes their rest; 

sweet is the calm of paradise the blest. 

Alleluia! Alleluia! 

7. But then there breaks a yet more glorious day: the 

saints triumphant rise in bright array; 

the King of glory passes on his way. 

Alleluia! Alleluia! 

8. From earth’s wide bounds, from ocean’s farthest coast, 

through 

gates of pearl streams in the countless host, 

singing to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: 

Alleluia! Alleluia! 

Text: William W. How, 1823–1897, alt. 

Music: SINE NOMINE. R. Vaughan Williams, 1872–1958 

X. Recessional: ‘‘Crown Him With Many Crowns’’

Please remain standing and in your seats while the 

family and the President depart. 

(Trim Line)

(Trim Line)

[ 115 ] 

Thank You: 

A special thank you to Donald McCullough (Music Director 

of the Master Chorale of Washington and former Music Director at the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer in McLean, 

Virginia (Chief Justice REHNQUIST’s church) for coordinating 

the music for this service. Special thanks also to Jennifer 

Goltz, Music Director of St. Matthew’s, for her assistance 

and to all the musicians who participated in this service. 

Æ 


23500.002