Chief Justice Rehnquist: The Case Of Miranda V. Arizonia

Chief Justice Rehnquist was appointed by Richard Nixon, in part as a response to the Warren Court’s liberal streak, which he used as a campaign issue. During his confirmation he was met with controversy as it became apparent he in fact disagreed with the precedent set in Borwn v. Board of Education. As an associate Justice he began as states’ rights advocate, which often not only placed Rehnquist not only in the minority, but as a lone dissenter. As time wore on the Court began to become more ideologically centered on the right. It was around this time that Associate Justice Rehnquist became Chief Justice Rehnquist. It was in this role he was able to show his managerial acumen drawing praise from all sides of the ideological spectrum. Rehnquist …show more content…
Arizonia, it was that despite his misgivings about the decision, which established these rights he came to realize it had become so ingrained and accepted that as a judge he felt it was not his place to deprive people of this cherished right. In the cases of regulating free speech, he rarely if ever considered the regulation of governments to be stepping over the bounds of what was constitutionally permissible. In the case of Rehnquist, it was partly a product of his commitment to law and order, as it was in Texas. V. Johnson, but he also believed in the sovereignty of the people in these states to set these standards. It is traditionally seen that conservative Justices are the ones that view this sovereignty as one of their defining principles, so they defer to state …show more content…
This culminated in U.S. v. Lopez, as he struck down the first federal statute under the Commerce Clause since the New Deal era. Yet in reality although it could be set it had set a bounds on the power Congress can claim under the Commerce Clause it did not alter the balance between the states and federal authority significantly, as it maintained the broad use of the Commerce Clause. Serving as an acknowledgement that, although conservative jurists may seek to return to what they view as original intent it is not something a conservative court is capable of due to the acceptance of the current state of affairs.
As one of the only two dissenting Justices in Roe V. Wade, Rehnquist throughout his time on the Court wanted to overturn the precedent set when he was an associate justice. He did not overturn, the decision, rather its essential components remained in place. However, the case did serve to limit Roe’s initial holding. Much like Roe v. Wade Rehnquist remained in the minority, yet he found much more company as he was joined by the most conservative wing of the