Edward Lazarus, counselling against "hagiography," is not impressed:
Over 33 years, he compiled a virtually unbroken record of trying to narrow the scope of laws protecting the civil and voting rights of minorities, including watering down the enforcement of Brown -- the landmark decision he opposed at its inception. . . .
We yield enormous power to the unelected Supreme Court because we believe the justices' decision-making process is more considered and deeply reasoned than the processes at work in the elected branches.
As chief justice, Rehnquist undermined this essential rationale for the court's authority. Inside a very narrowly divided court, Rehnquist's approach too frequently reduced the justices' decision making to the shallow calculus of five votes beats four with the winning side announcing the result backed by a peremptory "it-is-so-because-we-say-so" opinion.
Shallow Decisions