Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

When the news is not news

Like a normal visiting professor, he quietly came and went, fulfilling his yearly ritual of teaching at the UA Law School. He spoke only to selective groups of students and faculty and did his best to keep a low profile.

Most of the UA campus had no idea that this visiting professor was none other than William Hubbs Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Political figures and celebrities have publicly visited the UA, most recently Laura Bush, wife of GOP Presidential Contender George W. Bush. A proud Bush graced the front page of the Wildcat, dutifully campaigning for her husband.

So why wasn't Rehnquist, one of the most influential figures in the American legal system, covered like mad by the Arizona Daily Wildcat?

Editors wanted to. Reporters wanted to interview him about being at the UA, about all of the questionable decisions he has ruled on and the shady actions he has taken in regard to civil rights.

But it wasn't allowed.

About half a dozen phone calls were placed over a period of two weeks to the Assistant Dean of UA Law School, pressing her for 10 minutes, any 10 minutes Rehnquist had. Pleas to just sit in on his classes and watch the man speak to UA students were met with the discouraging reply, "I don't think so."

What a story it could have been. The front page might have screamed, "Rehnquist visits UA Law School," and the world would have known the whereabouts and activities of one of the most conservative, controversial, enigmatic chief justices the United States has ever had.

But, as painful as it is to admit, the Wildcat probably shouldn't have covered him.

This is one celeb the press shouldn't stake out.

The beauty of the U.S. Supreme Court is that it is the one branch of government that is still shielded from the press. In today's media-driven political system, Gallup polls and horse race coverage run the show. Pundits quiz candidates on everything from their favorite foods to the big money infiltrating their campaigns.

But Rehnquist wasn't making a campaign stop. His gig lasts for life. All justices have to do to keep their job is not die.

Yet, in doing their jobs, they make legal decisions that impact all of us. Arguably the most important job of the president is appointing individuals who have the power to trigger and change legal trends and precedents for an era.

Not questioning justices is a double-edged sword. It protects them from being influenced by public opinion and ensures that they can use their expertise to uphold the Constitution.

It also forces us to accept their positions on issues that might be controversial or flat-out wrong.

Rehnquist is known for having constitutionally defended segregation when he worked as a law clerk in Phoenix.

He reportedly once led a group in singing "Dixie," a pro-Confederate song.

He has also stated that the Constitution cannot be used to defend socially accepted customs such as abortion.

Disturbing? Yes. Can the press criticize him into changing his position? No.

There have been occasions when justices have been grilled by the press and scandals have broken during their appointment process. Clarence Thomas said he experienced "public lynching" because of the highly publicized Anita Hill scandal before he finally earned his appointment to the Supreme Court.

But for the most part, justices lead quiet lives making court decisions without the influence of press or politics. They do not face re-election, so they do not have to be responsive to public opinion.

Some may argue that they are not democratically elected, that too much power resides in the hands of an elite group of people that the public has not chosen.

However, the people do have at least an indirect say in who sits on their Supreme Court. They can elect presidents who match their political ideology and who will nominate appropriate justices.

The unique reality of the Supreme Court is that if it was as responsive to the people as elected representatives, it would be less effective in playing its role in the democratic system. Decisions would be based on politics rather than constitutional expertise.

True, Rehnquist's questionable past may make us dislike him. We can at least trust that when he makes a decision, Rehnquist probably acted on his vast knowledge of the Constitution - not to appease a special interest, not to secure his own political career.

Rehnquist left quietly last week, having avoided the claws of Wildcat columnists. His visit was a newsmaker, but sometimes the wise choice is to refrain from telling the story.

Sheila Bapat is a political science sophomore. She can be reached at editor@wildcat.arizona.edu.