Overzealous William H. Rehnquist

Yes, William Rehnquist was one of us-- an overzealous prosecutor. He was the Lone Ranger of his time, preserving conservatism so that it could flower later. All OPs mourn his passing. Regrettably, his death occurred at the same time we are dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and public attention will probably quickly shift from his death to Katrina and the search for his successor.

But let's pause for a moment and consider the Chief Justice.

A very good article is Dahlia Lithwick's "History's Justice: What Rehnquist Didn't Do." I think it gives a good idea as to why Rehnquist will be remembered by conservatives as an outstanding Chief Justice and by liberals as a good one (someday they'll get over the fact that he's a Republican, I think):

What Rehnquist didn't do in response to those charges was what Clarence Thomas did: He didn't become bitter, or reclusive, or vengeful. Rehnquist denied them, then moved on, and—for the most part—the public did too.

...But as Rehnquist rose to chief and saw his pet causes—including federalism, strict adherence to the views of the framers, and judicial restraint—shift from marginal theory to the court's polestars, he didn't do what Antonin Scalia has done: He didn't keep using his writing as a showcase for his own brilliant, persuasive ideas. Indeed his opinions became increasingly anorexic—thinner and pale. He had no need to shame his colleagues or flaunt his genius. He saw that he had won his wars and moved on...

...Something else Rehnquist was not: He was not an Earl Warren. He did not expect or demand that the changes he sought would come with sudden, dramatic moves. ...Rehnquist didn't cajole his colleagues into unanimity and rarely used his assignment powers as strategically as his predecessors had.

...Rehnquist did not tolerate expressions of contempt for the judiciary, or approve of measures to limit its powers. He used his Annual Report on the Judiciary, usually something of a snooze-fest, to castigate the Republican-led Senate for blocking Clinton’s judicial appointments and, more recently, to defend judges from attacks by right-wing demagogues.

And it goes on. How Appealing has a great roundup, which I got from SCOTUSBlog.