Before the mourning began — indeed, even before his death — the speculation about his successor began; Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist succumbed yesterday, at the age of 80, to his very private battle with thyroid cancer, and now the media is engaged in as respectful a feeding frenzy as possible about Justice Rehnquist’s legacy and the changing face of the US Supreme Court.  

Justice Rehnquist’s legacy is undoubtedly conservative — advocating states’ rights and the public role of religion in America while rallying against abortion and desiring to limit civil rights and the rights of criminal defendants — but his successor may even sit more staunchly on the far right of center. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement earlier this year on July 1st, which leaves two vacancies on the court.

President Bush nominated John Roberts — a stalwart conservative who, at 50, is preposterously young compared to his peers, should his nomination be confirmed by the Senate — as O’Connor’s successor, and Justice Rehnquist’s passing has cleared the canvas of American law to be repainted to President Bush’s liking. As Justice O’Connor was the nine-person panel’s less predictable swing voter, Roberts would, as a justice, considerably change the Supreme Court. The new session of the Supreme Court is fast approaching, and if there are only eight justices serving when the court reconvenes on October 3rd,  any ties will fail to set a legal precedent (although they will affirm lower court decisions). President Bush’s term in office now has a definite expiration date, but he now looks well positioned to engrave his ideological legacy on American law.  

Mimi Hanaoka