I had occasion to read a pile of Rehnquist opinions this summer as part of some academic research I was conducting for a professor. Some of the 'greatest hits' from Rehquist's dissents on equal protection, one of his least favorite clauses in the constitution:

Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1972)

[Court votes to strike down statute discriminating against aliens. Rehnquist dissents.] Native-born citizens can be expected to be familiar with the social and political institutions of our society; with the society and political mores that affect how we react and interact with other citizens. Naturalized citizens have also demonstrated their willingness to adjust to our patterns of living and attitudes, and have demonstrated a basic understanding of our institutions, system of government, history, and traditions. It is not irrational to assume that aliens as a class are not familiar with how we as individuals treat others and how we expect "government" to treat us.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)

[Court votes to strike down race-based peremptory challenges. Rehnquist dissents.]I cannot subscribe to the Court's unprecedented use of the Equal Protection Clause to restrict the historic scope of the peremptory challenge ... In my view, there is simply nothing "unequal" about the State's using its peremptory challenges to strike blacks from the jury in cases involving black defendants, so long as such challenges are also used to exclude whites in cases involving white defendants, Hispanics in cases involving Hispanic defendants, Asians in cases involving Asian defendants, and so on. This case-specific use of peremptory challenges by the State does not single out blacks, or members of any other race for that matter, for discriminatory treatment.

J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127 (1994)

[Court votes to strike down gender-based peremptory challenges. Rehnquist dissents.] The two sexes differ, both biologically and, to a diminshing extent, in experience. It is not merely "stereotyping" to say that these differences may produce a difference in outlook which is brought to the jury room.

25 Sep 05