Brennan v. Rehnquist

1) During their tenure together, Justice William J. Brennan represented the liberal wing of the Supreme Court while Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist represented the conservative wing. The jurisprudence of Justice Brennan was that the Constitution is not static, or frozen in time, in part because of the "due process" clause. This clause intends for a reading of the Constitution which is flexible and suitable for changing times. It is also important in regards to the concept of judicial review, in which the Court can decide whether a law is constitutional and uphold or nullify acts of the executive or legislative branch. According to Brennan, it was the responsibility of the Court to make sure the rights of minorities were on trampled on by majorities. Another important part of his philosophy is that Justices in a way represent American society as a whole. While they may not rely on opinion polls or believe that their judgments are greater than the American people's, their interpretation in using the zeitgeist and knowledge of the times allows them to view the Constitution through modern lenses.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, on the other hand, was opposed to the idea of a "living Constitution" as advocated by Brennan. His view is strictly constructionist. While conceding to the Court's right of judicial review, he believed that this concept was "undemocratic and antimajoritarian". Rehnquist stated that majorities had the right to enact "positive laws" and impose their views on minorities.

2) I side with the original interpretation stated by Chief Justice Rehnquist. While I believe in the concept of judicial review, Rehnquist's ideas are important in implementing the laws of the Constitution. The majority should have the right to impose its views, for better or worse. Otherwise, political stalemate would occur, slowing and and hindering the democratic process. The Court operates in this way and is the only way to ensure order and stability.