Assessing Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Abstract

How should a Chief Justice be assessed? This conference provides the occasion for considering this question as part of looking at the role of Chief Justice on the Supreme Court and in the American legal system. Rather than examining the office generally, I want to focus on assessing William Rehnquist as Chief Justice. One way of assessing any Chief Justice is in terms of her ability to achieve a substantive vision of the law. In this sense, few would disagree that John Marshall and Earl Warren were enormously successful in having their substantive visions reflected in the decisions of their Courts. Marshall's visions of judicial review and federalism, among other crucial issues, were embodied in decisions like Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Maryland,1 which provided a framework for government that lasts to this day. Earl Warren's visions of a more equal society better protecting the dignity of individuals were reflected in the desegregation cases,3 the rulings incorporating the Bill of Rights,4 and the decisions requiring reapportionment of state legislatures.5 Writings on the Warren Court, both by