Centerfield

"Just hold your water, I'm not leaving until they carry me out."

Essentially. Well, it is a "lifetime" appointment.

Rehnquist recused himself from a number of cases last fall because he was actively undergoing treatment for Cancer. If a justice undergoing treatment for cancer should force them off the bench, would you agree that ANY of the Justices should be required to leave if they are treated for cancer? What does age have to do with it, after all?

I'm not aware that anyone thinks that the Chief has lost the mental facility to continue on the bench (Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog has averred quite the opposite, that the chief is "at the top of his game"), and my view is that he should remain there either until a) he loses the physical ability to do so, or b) wants to quit.

Simon and I don't agree often. Note the date.

It's ridiculous to suggest physical infirmaties preclude the Chief Justice from serving. Not only is he keeping up with his fairshare of cases--his temporary, and understandable, recusal notwithstanding--he's keeping up with his administrative workload supervising the Judicial Conference. (And his recusal was limited to a) cases he hadn't seen orally argued and b) cases where his vote wouldn't have affected the decision of the Court.) He has good and loyal staff who will be glad to take up the slack as far as the manual stuff goes, though he'll retain decision-making control.

Holmes (Sherlock, not Oliver Wendell) said something along the lines of, "I'm all brain; my body is mere appendage." The Chief can be the Chief from a wheel chair. He can be the Chief without attending oral argument, let alone participating in oral argument if he can't speak. Justice Thomas rarely participates in oral argument, either.

We didn't demand Justices Stevens, O'Connor, or Ginsburg resign when they were ill. Why do we have a different expectation for the Chief Justice?

Finally, as far as "the power and prestige": nonsense. He's relatively reclusive. He's not out there flaunting his position in public--well, OK, the stripes on the robe excepted. On the other hand, he is very well aware of what's known as Potter Stewart Syndrome: an ailing member of the Court retires and, without un raison de vivre, dwindled and died.

I have to agree with Simon and Jaded. My attitude is "good for him." Why do we find it necessary to decide for someone when it's time for them to go? In my opinion, it almost seems as if we doubt the mental capacity of senior citizens. Hey, if JoePa is still roaming the sidelines, why should Renquist have to go?

Incidentally, I dare say that if Renquist was a female justice suffering from breast cancer, retirement would never be mentioned. The Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court never stepped down during her treatment, why should he? Basically, the media ripped into Dr. Frist for his long distance diagnosis of Terri Schiavo (and rightly so), but has seen no harm in hauling "experts" onto the air to do the exact same thing to the Chief Justice. It's just shameful.

I would agree with many of the foregoing comments if I thought that it was likely that his prolonged absence from the bench won't be repeated.

With respect to the power and the prestige of the office, you don't have to flaunt it to be addicted to it. Being treated like a deity 24 hours a day is what is hard to give up.

Oh for god sakes people, read Todd's post. He wasn't saying any justice with a medical problem should resign... Rehnquist's service has been impeded for sometime now. He clearly is hell bent on being the longest serving CJ on the Court. IMO, and with all due respect, the time to step down was a long time ago.

Matthew,

I did read the post and I based my comments on that post. Unless Todd's a doctor who has personally attended to the Chief Justice, I don't see where he's qualified to give opinions on whether his health has improved or not. None of us are.

There are plenty of jobs out there where people take time off to recover from illnesses. He's been back at court hearing cases, so I just don't see what the big deal is.

That being said, I'm off to the links this afternoon...should be a little more relaxed out there.

How has the Chief Justice's performance been impeded? His recusal was temporary, had no effect on any outcome, he carried his burden on writing opinions of the Court--which he himself assigns, so it's not like he couldn't have given himself a lighter load than everyone else if he had wanted to (and he didn't)--and he's been administrating the Judicial Conference. And his recusal is over. He's even been asking questions during oral argument.

Hell, Justice Jackson was recused for a year, because he was the chief American prosecutor for the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunals. (And the Chief Justice clerked for Justice Jackson shortly after the latter's return.)

Justices Stevens, O'Connor, and Ginsburg have all had healt difficulties. We didn't clamor for their resignations.

There's no evidence that the Chief Justice hasn't been carrying is weight, especially since March. His recusals were predicated on, and only related to, the fact that his vote was unnecessary to achieve the disposition of the cases wherein he recused. Moreover, recusals--even for lengthy periods--are not new ground for members of the Court. Therefore, there's no reason whatever the Chief should retire, provided he has confidence in his own health.