• Domestic Policy
• Foreign Policy
• Grassroots
• Law
• Media
• Meta
• Religion
• Rhetoric and Framing
• Technology and Tools
• Voting and Elections
• War

• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005
• May 2005
• April 2005
• March 2005

Excuse my insensitivity in not writing about the titanic momentous career of Rehnquist. Just one small point here. One of the common questions about the Chief Justice is why the Chief Justice even matters, beyond just being a status symbol and a figurehead.

One large reason is because the Chief Justice decides who will write the opinion if the Chief Justice is part of the majority.

How can this affect the operations of the Court? There have supposedly been several examples where Rehnquist:

1. Would have dissented in the minority
2. Swapped sides to become part of the majority
3. Assigned himself to write the opinion
4. Severely limited the scope of the majority opinion, so as to limit precedent for future decisions, while the rest of the majority would have wanted to write a more expansive decision.