After Rehnquist

EDITORIAL - The Boston Globe: "In his 33 years on the US Supreme Court, William H. Rehnquist tried to move federal law in favor of states rights, an archaic jurisprudence that would have negated much of the 20th century's progress. He was partially successful, but his fellow justices understood that the federal government and individuals have rights that transcend the vagaries of legal codes in the 50 states.

Rehnquist's death Saturday at age 80 gives president Bush an extraordinary opportunity to make a second appointment to the high court, and to choose a successor as chief justice. His death is sure to color the confirmation proceedings for John Roberts, Bush's first appointee. The Senate cannot shirk from the difficult business of these grueling and possibly divisive confirmation hearings, because so much is at stake.

Tracing Rehnquist's long career is a chance to see how much the court has changed, and not always for the better. When Rehnquist joined the court in 1972, it was dominated by such liberals as William J. Brennan. Dissenting in Roe v. Wade (1973), Rehnquist said that ''the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the states the power to legislate with respect to this matter [abortion]."

During his first year on the bench, the court had suspended the imposition of the death penalty, but it changed its mind four years later. Rehnquist had dissented from the earlier decision on the grounds that it infringed on the powers of state legislatures and Congress. When he became chief justice in 1986, he worked hard to discourage federal appeals by people condemned to die.

As Republican presidents appointed more conservatives to the court, Rehnquist had success in persuading his colleagues to strike down federal laws that he thought infringed on state prerogatives. If Rehnquist had his way, states could discriminate against gays, and Congress could not force states to make facilities accessible to the disabled. A majority sided against him in both cases.

Rehnquist's support for states' rights went deep into his past. But he made a crucial exception in 2000, shrugging off state autonomy to overturn a ruling of the Florida Supreme Court, thus stopping the counting of ballots and handing the presidential election to George W. Bush. That action assured that Rehnquist's successor would be chosen by Bush and likely in the same mold. Roberts, for one, has said he shows great deference to Congress in deciding cases.

Rehnquist was a collegial chief who presided affably over the court. But his judicial philosophy ignored modern American realities, which require a robust, uniform legal system to protect the individual against the caprice of local government."