The Partisan: The Life of William Rehnquist

by John A. Jenkins

As a young lawyer practicing in Arizona, far from the political center of the country, William Hubbs Rehnquist's iconoclasm made him a darling of Goldwater Republicans. He was brash and articulate. Although he was unquestionably ambitious and extraordinarily self-confident, his journey to Washington required a mixture of good-old-boy connections and rank good fortune. An outsider and often lone dissenter on his arrival, Rehnquist outlasted the liberal vestiges of the Warren Court and the collegiate conservatism of the Burger Court, until in 1986 he became the most overtly political conservative to sit as chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Over that time Rehnquist's thinking pointedly did not -- indeed, could not -- evolve. Dogma trumped leadership. So, despite his intellectual gifts, Rehnquist left no body of law or opinions that define his tenure as chief justice or even seem likely to endure. Instead, Rehnquist bestowed a different he made it respectable to be an expedient conservative on the Court.

The Supreme Court now is as deeply divided politically as the executive and legislative branches of our government, and for this Rehnquist must receive the credit or the blame. His successor as chief justice, John Roberts, is his natural heir. Under Roberts, who clerked for Rehnquist, the Court remains unrecognizable as an agent of social balance. Gone are the majorities that expanded the Bill of Rights.

The Rehnquist Court, which lasted almost twenty years, was molded in his image. In thirty-three years on the Supreme Court, from 1972 until his death in 2005 at age 80, Rehnquist was at the center of the Court's dramatic political transformation. He was a partisan, waging a quiet, constant battle to imbue the Court with a deep conservatism favoring government power over individual rights.

The story of how and why Rehnquist rose to power is as compelling as it is improbable. Rehnquist left behind no memoir, and there has never been a substantial biography of Rehnquist was an uncooperative subject, and during his lifetime he made an effort to ensure that journalists would have scant material to work with. John A. Jenkins has produced the first full biography of Rehnquist, exploring the roots of his political and judicial convictions and showing how a brilliantly instinctive jurist, who began his career on the Court believing he would only ever be an isolated voice of right-wing objection, created the ethos of the modern Supreme Court.

Genres: Biography, Law, Nonfiction, Legal, Biography Memoir, Politics, History

368 pages, Hardcover

First published September 1, 2012

About the author

John A. Jenkins is an American journalist, author, and entrepreneur. He is Founder & CEO of Law Street Media ] and President & Publisher Emeritus of CQ Press in Washington, D.C..

Reviews

[Myer Kutz · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to know what William Rehnquist was really like, this book will tell you. And if you want to know one of the reasons the current Supreme Court is the way it is, this book will tell you that, too. The book grew out of a Rehnquist profile that Jenkins wrote for the New York Times Magazine some years ago. He's brought things up to date in a breezy journalistic style that nevertheless remains serious throughout the book. The book is well-sourced, the major court cases are all here, there's plenty of original reporting, including some great stuff about Rehnquists's failed attempts at writing novels. Jenkins is judgemental, but fair. He doesn't let his own opinions get the better of him. Highly recommended.

[Jean · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jenkins is a well known journalist who scored major interviews with Chief Justice Rehnquist in 1984. That material plus extensive research resulted in the book “The Partisan: the life of William Rehnquist”. The book tells the start of the Chief Justice’s rise from a conservative, middleclass Milwaukee upbringing, to the highest grades in his class at Stanford Law School, to playing lead roles in President Richard Nixon’s Office of Legal Counsel, the appointment to the Supreme Court in 1972 by President Nixon to the appointment as Chief Justice in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan. I got the feeling that Jenkins was having difficulty in remaining unbiased in writing this book. I noted some frustration and anger on the part of Jenkins as he paints Rehnquist an “ardent segregationist.” Jenkins documents Rehnquist’s period of prescription drug addiction after back surgery. He reports Rehnquist’s role in defending the Nixon administration’s arrest of 12,000 Vietnam War protestors in May 1971, then sat on an appeal in the same case as a Justices of the Court. Jenkins paints Rehnquist as the most conservative, ideological racist and end-driven justice in decades. Jenkins did not explain how someone who tended toward extreme and frequently dissented managed to lead the institution so effectively. Some scholars have described Rehnquist’s jurisprudence as one favoring majoritarian rule, federalism, and law and order. Jenkins does say Rehnquist was known for encouraging collegiality among the justices with very different views. The author noted that those who disliked Rehnquist’s opinions nonetheless, gave him high marks for his administration of the court, noting that he was fair, even-handed and efficient in running conferences, assigning opinions and managing oral arguments. The book traces the life of William Rehnquist (1924-2005) effectively but Seven years after his death this book does little to help assess Rehnquist’s legacy. Overtime, his legacy will probably be judged not merely on the bases of what the Rehnquist court did but also on what it enabled future courts to do. The book was interesting and well worth reading, but I will need to read more about Rehnquist before I can reach a better understanding of the man and his beliefs. I read this book as an e-book on the Kindle app for my Ipad.

[Lucy · Rating 4 out of 5]

incredibly readable with some great story nuggets; appreciated the self-awareness of bias but want to read the version of this book that tries to rein it in

[Marc · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not so much a biography as a portrait, or profile. Either there isn't much information on Rehnquist's private life, or the author did not have access to it; so what we have is more of a sketch.

As a liberal, I always detested Rehnquist's approach to the law. He is a good example of how modern conservatism is really authoritarianism with a thin patina of libertarianism. This book, which quotes extensively from Rehnquist's writings, confirms me in this view.

This is an enjoyable, breezy read, but too insubstantial to be really satisfying. Also, the author does not hold back in his bias; he frequently inserts his opinions. I happen to agree with him, but I would be more interested in a balanced, well-rounded study of the man.

[The American Conservative]

'Readers interested in learning of William Rehnquist’s record as associate justice and chief justice will be better advised to start elsewhere. Those who hope to become acquainted with Rehnquist the man may find much of this book interesting, in a chatty way. I hope for an account of Rehnquist more respectful of his jurisprudence and less devoted to the box-score version of legal history than the average newspaper account. That account will have to come from an author less partisan than John A. Jenkins.'

Read the full review, "Misjudging Rehnquist," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...

[Mark Desrosiers · Rating 2 out of 5]

The jumbled chronology and lack of a perceptive biographer's imagination hobble this very thoroughly. Essentially a padded encyclopedia entry.

[David Hill · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the introduction, the author states that this book isn't an analysis of the significant cases he heard. That would be my main criticism of the book. Jenkins lays out a number of positions, including stating that Rehnquist came to an answer first, then applied the law to reach his predetermined answer. I think it would be good to support this belief by including a paragraph or two about these significant cases rather than just taking his word for it. This downgrades my rating from 4 stars to 3.

Having read a number of biographies of Chief Justices, I've decided that my opinion of whether a CJ was good or bad or indifferent is based on how many important cases were decided 8-1 or 9-0 versus 5-4. First, I don't believe that the Constitution is so poorly written that cases so often come down to a coin toss. Earl Warren's court ruled 9-0 or 8-1 on a whole raft of contentious cases. Rehnquist (and Roberts, one of his former clerks) doesn't even seem to attempt to gain a consensus.

On a personal level, I don't think Rehnquist was a horrible person. As a member of the Supreme Court, though, I can't condemn him enough. The purpose of the court is to interpret the law. Because he was an ideologue, he was interested only in the outcome of the case, not whether the law was constitutional or the court's interpretation of the law aligned with the intentions of the Legislature. He liked stare decisis only when it matched his views, but otherwise, precedent be damned. This is bad for the Court, bad for the Constitution, and bad for the country.

I think Nixon was one of the USA's worst presidents. He did many things that made the country worse. His selection of Rehnquist started the SC down the path to where we find ourselves today: with a SC that doesn't care what the Constitution says, and is willing to enable a wannabe dictator to destroy our Republic.

[Jack R.]

A shallow polemic that provocatively labels its subject as a "judicial nihilist" without any close reading (or reading at all) of the William Rehnquist's writings or opinions to support such a characterization. Indeed, the most jurisprudentially influential period of the justice's career--the embrace of "New Federalism"-- is quickly glanced over and minimized as an overblown, overrated "revolution," statistically insignificant and overshadowed by the centrist of O'Connor and Kennedy. It felt as if Jenkins' dedicated as much attention to Rehnquist's career as a Chief Justice as his brief drug addiction. Jenkin's seems uninterested in law itself. Thus, what is a "life" of Rehnquist separated from his hundreds of opinions and dissents? Not biography but gossip-mongering.

[Doug · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thoughtful view of the conservatives’ “long game” for the Supreme Court.

[Joseph · Rating 3 out of 5]

a weirdo. a powerful weirdo.

[Sue Boros · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written.

[Rick · Rating 4 out of 5]

A breezy judicial biography. "The Partisan" metastasized from an article the John Jenkins published in 1985, and his command of the material is markedly stronger prior to 1985. Jenkins brings the young Rehnquist alive. The older Rehnquist remains an enigma. Not entirely the author's fault, but mostly: Rehnquist stopped giving interviews after Jenkins ran the 1985 article.

Jenkins is weakest when describing Rehnquist's jurisprudential legacy. Jenkins's premise is that Rehnquist was a "partisan" who sought the ideologically sound result at the expense of other values, like following precedent. Fair enough. But Jenkins concludes, echoing Rehnquist's own sentiments, that the justice never wrote an opinion that would stand the test of time. Jenkins later undermines this idea when he explores the resiliency of Rehnquist's criminal procedure jurisprudence and the "seeds" he laid for the future conservative development of the court. Maintaining ideological soundness does not lead inexorably to ridiculous results, and Rehnquist was not a moron. The problem is rather that we expect judges to value things other than the party line--justice, for example--and Rehnquist did not value those things. Nonetheless, he made a lasting mark on the bench.

Despite its flaws, I gave the book four stars for the good gossip and the felicitous prose.

[Oliver Bateman · Rating 4 out of 5]

a breezy and extremely partisan extension of jenkins' fine nyt mag work abt rehnquist. oddly enough, as unflattering as it all was, rehnquist nonetheless came off as a curiously likeable fellow: bored w/ his job, bored w/ his life, cultivated in the loose way that we middle americans sometimes chance to become. i suppose i ended up feeling abt him the way bill douglas did, which certainly wasn't jenkins' intention. in fact, i may have ended up this way for exactly that reason: it wasn't jenkins' intention. this bio does adhere to richard posner's belief that judicial biographies should be concise and poignant, even if jenkins devotes far too little space to exploring how rehnquist, unlike his later paleoconservative fellow travelers, was the great anti-stare decisis judge of all time (in part because he was too lazy to bother poring over precedent unless he felt it supported his position).

[Jim Blessing · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a decent, but boring book about a conservative hack, who lucked into becoming a supreme court justice. As a clerk, Rehnquist advised Justice Jackson to vote against Brown vs. Brown of Education and instead support the long-time segregationist ruling of Plessy versus Ferguson. Rehnquist was an Activist Conservative justice trying to make his right-wing views the law of the land. In my opinion, he was a bad person.

[Christina · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very well researched and has lots of interesting historical facts. The author clearly was not a fan of William Rehnquist and makes him look bad in the book. Rehnquist certainly had his shortcomings, but I would have enjoyed the book more if it shared some of his successes as well. Without his successes it felt like gossip and jeering.

[Torstein · Rating 3 out of 5]

Readable, but nothing extraordinary.

[Al Menaster · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent biography. Rhenquist came to the court with an agenda, to implement his ideology, and he did so, even with inconsistent positions.