Rehnquist Was A Junky
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Drugs, Law, Supreme Court
I certainly don’t use the term “junky” lightly, but we’re talking about more than a decade long, hardcore addiction to incredibly strong painkillers. It certainly makes mild drug use by former and current Presidents (and any hopefuls) seemingly irrelevant.
The FBI’s 1986 report on Rehnquist’s drug dependence was not released at the time of his confirmation, though some Democratic senators wanted it made public. But it is in Rehnquist’s now-public file, and it contains new details about his behavior during his weeklong hospital stay in December 1981. One physician whose name is blocked out told the FBI that Rehnquist expressed “bizarre ideas and outrageous thoughts. He imagined, for example, that there was a CIA plot against him.”The doctor said Rehnquist “had also gone to the lobby in his pajamas in order to try to escape.” The doctor said Rehnquist’s delirium was consistent with him suddenly stopping his apparent daily dose of 1400 milligrams of the drug — nearly three times higher than the 500-milligram maximum recommended by physicians. The doctor said, “Any physician who prescribed it was practicing very bad medicine, bordering on malpractice.”
And remember, Rehnquist was made an associate justice of the Supreme Court in 1971. When did he start taking this painkiller?
A July 26, 1986, memo sent by then-FBI Director William Webster to the Washington, D.C., field office advised agents that some physicians already interviewed indicated Rehnquist had been taking Placidyl since before 1972 — earlier than had been previously disclosed. Agents were told that if, during their investigation, they considered contacting Rehnquist himself, “concurrence must be obtained” first from headquarters. The FBI report ultimately concluded that Rehnquist was already taking Placidyl in 1970, when he was given a physical at a government facility. By the 1980s the drug had fallen out of favor because of its potency and side effects, and even in the 1970s it was recommended only for short-term use.Though his name was blacked out, Dr. Freeman Cary, then the attending physician of the Capitol — whose services are also available to Supreme Court justices — told agents that he began prescribing Placidyl to Rehnquist in 1972 for insomnia and continued to do so until the 1981 episode. For six or seven months before Rehnquist’s hospitalization in 1981, Cary indicated, Rehnquist was re-filling three-month prescriptions for Placidyl every month — suggesting he was taking close to 1,500 milligrams daily instead of 500.
So I guess the question is how much did this drug shape his point of view? I mean, it had to. There’s no way you’re popping that many pills everyday and it doesn’t color your perception of the world around you.
Tragic stuff, but to me this points to one more reason to consider term limits for judges. They aren’t gods, so we shouldn’t treat them as such.
This entry was posted on Saturday, January 6th, 2007 and is filed under Drugs, Law, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 6th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Very good article. You are so right on term limits. I am an attorney and I can tell you Federal Judges have a lot of power. Back when people lived a lot less time it was still a powerful position. Now they are treated like Kings and Queens.
January 7th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Term limits will politicize the function of judges. The nomination and appointment process are politicized enough. Do you really want your constitutional rights being determined by a judge who is having to weigh his political fortune on the public opinion of his/her decision. I think not. Can anyone point to a Rehniquist decision that they believe was influenced by his alleged addiction to painkillers? Can anyone point to a moment in time during the Rehnquist tenure as Chief Justice that the administration of SCOTUS was compromised do to this alleged addiction? Furthermore, term limits for Judges (particularly SCOTUS) would reek havoc with the continuity of precedent. In short, a totally bad idea and I fail to see the logic: “They aren’t gods, so we should have term limits.” You are correct, they aren’t gods and they can be impeached and removed from office. Perhaps this would have happened with Rehniquist if his addiction were made public, but I doubt it, because his opinions and administration of SCOTUS were almost universally respected even by those that disagreed with him.
January 7th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
[...] Justin Gardner at Donklephant: Rehnquist was a junky? [...]
January 7th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Is there an impeachment process for Supreme Court justices? I was under the impression there was none…
January 8th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I agree with Dos, term limits are a bad idea for SCOTUS. It is extremely valuable to have judges appointed by administrations very different from the current one. Certainly liberals can see the benefit of not having all of the Supreme Court Justices appointed by the current president, and I’m sure conservatives can see that benifit to. So even if you did have term limits, they would have to be in excess of 8 years, probably atleast 16 or 20 years, which means that term limits would have done nothing to limit the impact of this decade long addiction.
January 17th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
People, the term limits would obviously be staggered because nobody would replace all the judges at once. It’s no different than the partisan roulette we’re currently playing when one judge either decides to quit or die. But at that point, it’s not up to them to wait it out until a conservative or liberal is in office. All this will do is politicize presidential campaigns further because people will know that judges are going to be stepping down. That’s it.
And again, Rhenquist was a JUNKY. Just because it wasn’t crack or coke doesn’t mean it didn’t mess with his head. And term limits would have least knocked him out of there after his decade long binge, instead of the additional 20 years he stayed on the bench. I mean, I’m not exactly sure what you’re looking for in terms of practices and standards for the highest court in the land, but not taking triple the suggested amount of painkillers for over a decade would rank up there for me.