Chief Justice William Rehnquist released the following statement today after being released from the hospital:
I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement. I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits.
Apparently reporters have been staking out Rehnquist’s house for weeks, and he seems to have gotten sick of it. Good for him. He also may well have his eye on the record books, as he will shortly (next summer) surpass the length of time John Marshall spent on the Court, and is only a couple of years away from becoming the longest-serving Supreme Court Justice in the history of the United States, a record currently held by Justice William O. Douglas. Whatever the reason, here’s hoping his health allows him to keep serving as long as he wants. Despite my disagreements with him on lots of legal issues, he has been a good Chief, and we don’t need any more confirmation battles right now.
In what way would you say he’s been a good chief? I’m not being cheeky here, I’m really curious. I really don’t know much about his career besides that I disagree with him.
A lot of the Chief’s job qua Chief is inside baseball – keeping the Court’s internal operations running smoothly, keeping the other Justices reasonably happy, dealing with Congress and the rest of the federal judiciary. On all of those fronts, Rehnquist has really been quite good – a vast improvement over his predecessor, Warren Burger, whose imperious manner made everyone inside the Court miserable.
Political considerations aside, it seems to me that his health really isn’t up to the task anymore. He had to miss oral argument for a bunch of cases last term, didn’t he? That’s not doing his job.As for confirmation battles, his retirement might be a good thing. I could allow Bush to compromise, nominate one judge that the far right really likes, and one conservative-centrist mainstream judge, and get agreement from Senate Democrats because it wouldn’t change the court very much.
You really couldn’t get a more Romney-like answer if you tried…what a moron.
Agreed. He’s a total worm.
Very clever, David. Unfortunately, cleverness is not wisdom.You are right to ask — by means of your “modest proposals” — whether cell-phone use is inherently different from other distractions: kids, food, the stereo, and so forth. Well, a little googling reveals a list of studies compiled by the Insurance Information Institute. Do have a look. Here is a Google search with many links regarding this issue.It would seem that hands-free or not, drivers are signficantly impaired by cell phone use while driving. Your potshots at the Australian study make you sound a little like my new global-warming-skeptic friends. Does the effect vary by driver, environment, driving conditions? I have no doubt. Are there problems with every study? Of course. Is an Australian study applicable to the US, or Boston? Imperfectly, of course.But when all of the imperfect studies and imperfect data point the same direction, well, maybe it’s time to take action. The studies indicate a significantly increased risk of accident while talking on the phone, hands-free or not.In business school, one hears about good management being the ability to make decisions in the absence of perfect information. In public policy, you never have perfect information: not about economics, or crime, or education, or health care.There is also a good dose of common sense that can be applied here. We do not expect the state to take the measures you’ve outlined above. Driving while eating or ogling is unwise, but it’s hard to enforce a ban. No one is going to ban young children from backseats. The question is whether cell phone-driving is different enough from these activities to warrant state intervention. BTW, catching drunk drivers is difficult too, but we do it anyway because it’s important.And it squares with anecdotal experience as well: I cannot tell you how many times I’ve seen folks talking on cell phones driving unsafely. And yes, they’re definitely worse (more clueless and preoccupied) than the average Masshole driver. I also admit to blatant hypocrisy: I’m a much worse driver when talking on the phone – and therefore try to avoid it.
It’s so funny…I agree, the people I see on the phone in the car are terrible. However, I’m married to a guy who can safely (yes, safely) spend an hour on the cell phone while driving, going through every manner of traffic and even toll booths. He never once misses a beat.I myself, however, try to stay off of them while driving. I’m not quite as talented as he is. đŸ˜‰
I confess to being the teensiest bit facetious in my “no conversations” and “no ogling” proposals. But I’m actually serious about eating and drinking. It seems to me that eating or drinking while driving (1) requires the use of hands, while talking on a phone with a hands-free device does not; (2) requires concentration and attention so that you don’t dump food all over yourself; and (3) has a significant risk of a sudden and unexpected major distraction – like spilling hot coffee on yourself – that is far more dangerous than anything that could happen with a phone.As to trade-off: of course no one is going to ban kids in the backseat. But as with phone calls, is it really essential to eat the Big Mac at THAT moment? Couldn’t it wait ’til you arrive at your destination, or can’t you afford to spend another 5 minutes at the rest stop to wolf it down before getting back in the car? So I see no real difference there.As to enforcement: I don’t buy your point. It’s just as easy for cops to see drivers eating or drinking as it is to see them yakking on a phone – actually, it’s much easier to spot the eaters if the yakkers use a speakerphone (as I do) when driving.As to studies, here is what NHTSA has to say: “The current research does not provide a definitive answer as to which behavior [eating or talking on a cell phone] is riskier. In a controlled study, comparing eating and operating a voice-activated cell phone to continuously operating a CD player, it was found that the CD player operation was more distracting than the other activities. In a test track study conducted by NHTSA, the results showed that manual dialing was about as distracting as grooming/eating, but less distracting than reading or changing CDs. It is also important to keep in mind that some activities are carried out more frequently and for longer periods of time and may result in greater risk.” Sounds pretty inconclusive to me – both are risky. Some even report that eating is worse.So how about it? Are ya with me?
Of course, there is already a law on the books — reckless driving. If you’re driving in a reckless manner, regardless of your speed, etc., you can get a big ol’ ticket.So: here’s what I’d like to see. More cops on the streets, pulling people over.If you commit an infraction and you’re on the phone, a BigMac is in your hand, whatever — not only do you get your speeding/running-a-red/no-left-turn ticket, but you get cited for reckless driving too.That’s how you get the message out, without new laws. You simply enforce the laws you got.
Makes sense to me. I’d love to see cops pull more people over for the stupid stuff we all see on the roads every day. My personal favorite: the huge chunks of ice that owners didn’t bother to scrape off flying off the tops of cars and into the windshields of the cars behind them. Also, I like large unsecured objects bouncing out of pickup trucks. As stomv says: no need for new laws – nail them for reckless driving.
I agree with stomv. I don’t think the state should be regulating peoples’ personal lives, be it with regards to seatbelts, eating food in cars, cell phones, whatever. But if people drive recklessly, pull them over. Better enforcement of that would result in people incapable of driving with a cell phone to stop, and those able to do so could continue.
I do have a problem with not enforcing seat belt laws…I like those laws. Paying for car insurance is compulsury here. Seat belts are a huge benefit in cutting medical costs in an accident (with some few exceptions I imagine). My insurance rates go up if everyone is allowed to drive or be in a car without seat belts.Driving is one of those weird things where I’m not so libertarian. Like air and water pollution, driving is out in the common public arena . We’re all possibly affected by reckless driving, people who aren’t paying attention, etc. That doesn’t mean we need new laws necessarily, but simple “personal responsibility” ends when you drive a 3-ton vehicle into me, sorry. I want cops on the road, and I want them pulling over the dangerous people. If that sometimes includes myself, so be it.
Ken,I agree that the state should not be regulating personal lives, but unless you’re sitting in your car in your driveway, driving is a PUBLIC activity. Most privacy rights are surrendered the moment you drive onto a public way, and another person’s freedom to eat, drink, talk on the phone and drive ends when it threatens my freedom to drive home without being killed by a maniac who lost control of their car because they dropped their phone and spilled hot coffee on themselves while trying to pick it up. The law routinely says that individual freedoms end when they cross the line of threatening public safety. I definitely support a hands-free law.The other reality is that many of the idiots we all yell at for driving like morons while talking on their phones would still be driving like morons even if they weren’t on the phone. THe real problem is that we hand out driver’s licenses like Haloween candy. If we actually taught people the realities and basic physics of driving 4000 pound implements of destruction, we might make a dent in the number of accidents. Until we dramatically improve driver training and licensing standards (which we can do since driving is a privilege, not a right) we are still going to have chaos on the roads regardless of any cell phone restrictions.