Remembering William Rehnquist, the late chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
Re: “Chief Justice Rehnquist dies of thyroid cancer,” Sept. 4 news story.
Not only was Chief Justice William Rehnquist a brilliant jurist, a highly effective leader of the U.S. Supreme Court and a statesman in his role to represent the court to the rest of the world, he was also a caring and generous person.
In 1975, when he had been on the court for a brief time and I was an assistant professor of political science at the University of Nebraska, Associate Justice Rehnquist granted a request from a colleague of mine and me to be interviewed on videotape. We gathered one morning in April at the Office of the Solicitor General, located in the Supreme Court building. I was so nervous at the prospect of having a conversation with a justice of the Supreme Court that I momentarily forgot my own name. He was perfectly understanding of my lapse and put me at ease with a friendly comment.
Despite suffering from a bad cold, Rehnquist sat with us for the better part of an hour patiently responding to questions and comments from us. He was unfailingly thoughtful and directly responsive to our questions. He presented fascinating insights into the subjects of constitutional law and Supreme Court operations.
Even though our equipment was primitive and our media savvy quite lacking, he treated us with the greatest respect and kindness.
There is no doubt that professional media representatives would have dearly loved to be in our place and that his comments would have received far greater attention had they conducted the interview. Nevertheless, Rehnquist took time from his very busy schedule to provide two young college professors with a recording of a conversation that would be used only for teaching purposes.
Subsequently I had periodic written communications with Rehnquist. He expressed interest in how the recorded interview was being used in my college classes. I am happy to say the interview was used (and will be used) frequently and with good effect.
I join all of those in commemorating the passing of a great chief justice and a kind man.
Jim L. Riley, Denver
The writer is a professor of politics at Regis University.
Catholic priest scandals
Re: “Will the Catholic Church own up?” Sept. 4 Colorado Voices column.
I wish to congratulate Chuck Reyman for his pinpoint accuracy in identifying the underlying problem affecting the Catholic Church: its insensitive inability to understand people’s anger with how it is reacting in the face of presbyterial pedophilia – and to other such issues.
It is easier to circle the wagons, ignore the crisis, and stonewall any attempt to breach the divide than it is to compassionately, contritely and humbly address the issue.
Tom Stumpf, Longmont
…
Has there ever been a perfect organization? Are there any religious denominations without scandal? It seems to be true that the archdiocese of Denver moved an abusive priest from parish to parish; however, that was before Charles Chaput was the archbishop.
Chaput, however, sent a letter to every parish (one of which I am a member) where the Rev. Harold White had served, requesting that anyone with information regarding abuse please contact the archdiocese.
As for many “fallen away Catholics,” the arrogance comes in when we as humans think we know more than God and wish to change the church to agree with our own beliefs. If the majority of people feel that abortion is OK, for instance, then the church must be wrong. Would Jesus have condoned sin because the majority thought it right? If so, there would have been no need for him to die on the cross.
The Archbishop’s Catholic Appeal fund helps those in the archdiocese who are poor and indigent. We should all support this action.
I am proud to be a Catholic and I, too, like Archbishop Chaput, am at a loss to understand Reyman’s anger. I will pray that he finds peace.
Kay Caspersen, Vail
…
Many thanks to Chuck Reyman for his call-out of the Catholic hierarchy. As a recovering Catholic since the pedophilia scandal, I’m ashamed the church that championed social justice in my youth has been lost in an obsession with sexual politics. Its conveniently narrow litmus tests of abortion and homosexuality ignore Jesus’ focus on helping the least among us.
As with secular scandals from Enron to Abu Ghraib, the old boys’ network circles the wagons to protect its literally vested interests, refusing to address the structural sins of the fathers and restore their moral authority.
I can only hope the growing majority of Hispanic congregates puts poverty back in the pulpits, as is generally the case in Latin America. Until then, my donations will fund non-Catholic charities that understand the needs – and the anger – of the faithful and the spiritual dimensions of accountability.
Karen Hart, Castle Rock
…
Ho, hum, another rant from a “fallen away Catholic.” Chuck Reyman is miffed because his “club” won’t change its rules like other “clubs” down the street.
Reyman receives fund-raising letters for the archbishop’s annual drive to help poor people. (Who doesn’t?) He feels the decent thing would’ve been for the archbishop to mention the recent child-abuse scandal in that letter. I have trouble imagining that on the same stamp. The Catholic Register, the diocesan newspaper, has begun an in-depth series about this subject. Maybe Reyman throws that away, too.
His only legitimate complaint is the child abuse, but all Catholics, practicing and otherwise, feel that way. I personally feel that if the allegations are true about the abuse and hush-up, the diocese deserves to be sued. But none of this can be laid at the door of Archbishop Charles Chaput.
I suggest Reyman go down the street and join one of the more “relaxed” clubs. He probably wouldn’t have to wear a tie and jacket.
Nora Christie, Denver
Budget cuts and the U.S. Forest Service
Re: “Mules symbolize depth of federal forest cuts,” Sept. 4 editorial.
The Forest Service budget cuts described in your editorial are examples of the stripping away of vital government functions that are the unfortunate hallmark of the Bush administration.
With declining recreational budgets, the Forest Service is overwhelmed by unmanaged recreation. As a result, Colorado national forests are experiencing increased vandalism, lawlessness, irresponsible recreational use and resource degradation. Unmaintained trails and lack of law enforcement jeopardize visitor safety and enjoyment. Dilapidated, deteriorating campgrounds and infrastructure create a broken-window effect that leads to further vandalism.
A far more dramatic but not unrelated example is New Orleans, where federal budget cuts led to a breach in the levees and a spectacular betrayal of public trust.
Over the last four and a half years, the Bush administration has systematically removed the human and ecological safety net provided by countless government functions. By defunding the Forest Service, it has abdicated the stewardship role that only the government can play, and has left our national forests shamefully open to degradation and neglect.
Roz McClellan, Nederland
…
The Forest Service budget cuts shortchange not only national forest recreation in Colorado but one of the state’s major economic enterprises: tourism. Tourism is Colorado’s second-largest industry, generating $7 billion in revenue per year and $550 million in state and local taxes.
Tourism provides more than 30 percent of the jobs in 15 Colorado counties. Yet few people realize how dependent Colorado’s tourism industry is on the recreation provided by Colorado’s national forests. For example, Colorado’s national forests attract the vast majority of recreational visits to all Colorado public lands each year: 80 percent. This is far more than visits to state or national parks. And, as mentioned in your editorial, Colorado contains some of the most heavily visited national forests in the country.
National forests also play a vital role in local economies. If we continue to underfund the Forest Service recreation budget, we risk hurting Colorado’s already tenuous economy.
SeEtta Moss, Canon City
Memories of Chicago, 1968
Letter-writer Mark Stewart’s praise of the first Mayor Daley’s handling of the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago is puzzling (Sept. 4 Open Forum). As a Chicago-born baby boomer, I distinctly remember that the ’68 convention was, in fact, judged to be a police riot.
Far from an instance of a city being kept under control, it was the havoc that took place that prompted an official investigation into what went wrong. The conclusion of that investigation was that the city’s descent into mayhem was the result of the out-of-control violence of the police themselves.
It was a huge humiliation for the mayor, from which he never recovered, and a turning point in the public attitude. So many people were savagely attacked by the police just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It seemed every suburban parent we knew either had a college-aged child who was bloodied or tear-gassed while returning from a city university or part-time job – or knew someone who did.
Whatever point Stewart wanted to make about the handling of the lawlessness in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, holding the infamous Chicago police riot of ’68 up as an example of the right way to do things was an odd choice.
Felice Sage, Littleton
Auto insurance rates
Re: “2 Dems call for probe of car insurance rates,” Sept. 4 news story.
As I was reading The Post’s article about insurance companies possibly overcharging consumers, I was struck with the question: Did my auto insurance rates go down after no-fault was eliminated? No! In fact, with the extra medical coverage I needed, my premiums actually went up.
According to your article, state Insurance Commissioner David Rivera says he won’t investigate companies that have not cut rates by 15 percent because, “I don’t think that’s the best use of our resources.” If his job is not to investigate potentially illegal rate hikes, then perhaps his position should be changed to an elected one, instead of appointed. That way, he might be responsible to the needs of his constituents.
Bill Wolf, Denver
Alternate takes on John Andrews’ definitions of “liberal” and “conservative”
Re: “Laboring on toward political distinctions,” Sept. 4 John Andrews column.
In his column, John Andrews contrasts “liberal” with “conservative” leanings. I believe his list could be rewritten as follows:
1. Andrews writes, “Liberals favor feelings; conservatives favor reason.” I believe that this could read, “Liberals favor compassion; conservatives favor punishment.”
2. Andrews: “Liberals favor theory; conservatives favor experience.” Rewrite: “Liberals favor unimpeded research; conservatives favor ‘the way it’s always been done.”‘
3. Andrews: “Liberals favor sociology; conservatives favor theology.” I would almost let this stand – to the detriment of conservatives; but how about: “Liberals favor realism about human behavior; conservatives favor imposing the values of one group on all other groups.”
4. Andrews: “Liberals tend to utopianism; conservatives tend to realism.” Rewrite: “Liberals aim for a better society; conservatives protect entrenched interests.”
5. Andrews: “Liberals favor the collective; conservatives favor the personal.” Rewrite: “Liberals believe in reforming democratic government; conservatives favor corporate influence in government.”
6. Andrews: “Liberals favor the state; conservatives favor the family.” Rewrite: “Liberals favor the democratic state and the democratic family; conservatives want to regulate your bedroom.”
7. Andrews: “Liberals favor the government; conservatives favor the market.” Rewrite: “Liberals favor the regulation of harmful business practices; conservatives favor economic concentration.”
8. Andrews: “Liberals favor equality; conservatives favor freedom.” Rewrite: “Liberals favor helping the poor; conservatives value of equal opportunity of all to sleep under bridges.”
9. Andrews: “Liberals emphasize excuses; conservatives emphasize responsibility.” Rewrite: “Liberals emphasize inclusion; conservatives emphasize prejudice.”
10. Andrews: “Liberals trust appointed judges; conservatives trust elected legislators.” Rewrite: “Liberals sometimes win court cases; conservatives hate that.”
11. Andrews: “Liberals favor the United Nations; conservatives favor the United States.” Rewrite: “Liberals hold their country to a high standard; conservatives take refuge in bombastic patriotism, the last refuge of scoundrels.”
Notice anything? Each set of “observations” is really a set of straw men. When a viewpoint is presented only by its critics, it always looks weak and wrongheaded to the point of ridiculousness. Argumentation is never fair until both sides are fairly represented.
Al Heath, Fort Collins
…
I am amazed at the arrogance of John Andrews’ column contrasting liberal and conservative beliefs. Being a conservative, Andrews has the right to tell us what he believes, but he doesn’t have the right to tell the world what liberals believe. His ideas are so far off the mark that it is obvious he has never actually stopped to listen to any liberal ideas.
Andrews says conservatives believe in reason and liberals favor feelings. But in reality, conservative philosophy is boiling over with feelings: feelings of condescension, condemnation and righteous indignation. Liberals favor the feelings of compassion.
He says liberals favor sociology whereas conservatives favor theology. However, the liberals I know are just as religious as conservatives. It is just that liberals favor the theology of the New Testament’s compassionate, “turn-the-other-cheek” God; whereas conservatives favor the Old Testament’s wrathful, vengeful, “eye-for-an-eye” God.
He says liberals believe in equality and conservatives believe in freedom. In my experience, liberals believe in personal privacy, freedom and equality. Conservatives believe in unlimited freedom for business, but no personal privacy and intrusive intervention in the lives and homes of our citizens.
The rest of Andrews’ examples are similar stereotypes, carefully drawn to show conservatives in a good light and liberals in a bad light. Andrews should leave such comparisons to people who have actually looked at both sides of the issues.
Larry Fish, Denver
…
John Andrews once again proves that little thought actually occurs at right-wing think tanks like the Claremont Institute. Andrews was especially outrageous when he stated that liberals favor the United Nations over the United States. I guess in his small mind, a citizen can’t recognize the role of the U.N. and love his country at the same time. I was also surprised to hear that liberals favor excuses while conservatives favor responsibility. Apparently he hasn’t heard the litany of excuses from his commander and chief as to why we’re stuck in an Iraqi quagmire or why it takes several days to get supplies to refugee centers in New Orleans.
Timothy Rehder, Golden
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
