When the history of the Rehnquist court is written, it will be about a justice who moved the court in a conservative direction, but in a way that did not tear the court apart.

He took the fight out of the opposition.

He was able, over time, to gather colleagues together cordially, manage tension, build a majority and turn them over to his point of view.

What history dictates is even relatively weak presidents have often gone for home runs with nominees.

There was one person who kind of stood up and was willing to test the standard and it didn't work out well for him. And thus the lesson was learned for all future nominees, and I suspect for John Roberts as well.

They are saving their ammunition, saving their energy, saving their resources for what could be the next Armageddon. They can't go all-out over and over.

The last elections revealed sharp political divisions in the American political landscape, ... Yet many student opinions about the First Amendment and freedom of the press tend to stay remarkably consistent across these otherwise widely accepted political fault lines.

He did it by choosing carefully the doctrine of judicial restraint. You see it in the cases the court hears, and showing the way with his brand of leadership.

This is one of the few ways even a weak president can make his mark — especially when his party controls the Senate.