Chief Justice William Rehnquist Dies: A Look at His Passion for Sports and the Future of the U.S. Supreme Court

Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away yesterday at the age of 80. The valedictorian of Stanford Law School in 1951, Rehnquist served on the Court for 33 years, the last 19 as Chief Justice. What you might not know about Rehnquist was his passion for sports. He was a cross-country runner at his suburban Milwaukee high school, and played tennis competitively into his late 70s. He was also said to be an avid sports trivia buff.

Despite his position, fame, and intellect, Rehnquist was regarded as a regular guy when outside of the Court. An afficiando of Miler Lite, Rehnquist enjoyed watching sports on TV with beer in hand. According to Joseph Hoffman, a law professor at Indiana University and a former Rehnquist clerk, Rehnquist "came across as a person of grandeur and importance [but] if you saw him on the street, you'd expect him to be the kind of guy coming out of a bowling alley or a corner pub, not one of the most powerful people in America."

Perhaps Rehnquist's passion for sports influenced his style as Chief Justice. Known to embrace rules and efficiency, Rehnquist seemed like the Bill Belichick of Justices: he avoided making favorites among attorneys who frequently argued before the Court, and he would sharply cut off any attorney who went over the time limit--and would do so without pleasantry--just as he would unreluctantly dispense disagreement without worrying about hurting anyone's feelings or upsetting the legal community around him. He also expected decisions be written quickly by his Associate Justices (much like, I imagine, Coach Belichick expects of the game prep by his assistant coaches).

So who will replace Rehnquist? It remains to be seen, but my money is on President Bush changing John Roberts' nomination from that of Associate Justice to that of Chief Justice, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor staying on (she hasn't resigned yet) until another nominee, perhaps Janice Rogers Brown, is confirmed.

For several reasons, it would be reasonable for President Bush to move Roberts from Associate Justice nominee to Chief Justice nominee. First, it would be unusual for President Bush to nominate a current Associate Justice for Chief Justice: 11 of the 16 Chief Justices in U.S. history had not been Associate Justices. That may surprise some, but contrary to popular belief, both outside nominees for Chief Justice and Associate Justices nominated for Chief Justice have to be confirmed by the Senate. Chief Justice Warren Burger, for instance, was--like Roberts--serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at the time of his nomination by President Nixon in 1969. Similarly, Chief Justice Earl Warren was Governor of California when President Eisenhower nominated him to become Chief Justice in 1953. Second, Roberts possesses certain characteristics that might make him both a natural successor to Rehnquist and an appealing choice for President Bush: he's a former clerk to Rehnquist, relatively young (50), conservative but not--from what we can tell--extremist, and, perhaps most importantly, a near sure bet to be confirmed.

As a nominee for Associate Justice, Rodgers, 56, would be more of a wild-card choice. Formerly an Associate Justice on the California Supreme Court, Rogers is African-American and considered ultra-conservative. Though she recently received Senate confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, her philosophical views might precipitate a rough Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Moreover, her views, like those of Justice Clarence Thomas, may not be embraced by many in the African-American community. On the other hand, many expect President Bush to nominate a woman, and given the President's disastrous management of the New Orleans Hurricane Relief Effort, perhaps he will (and should) feel an extra obligation to nominate an African-American, even one that engenders a lukewarm response from the African-American community.

So I predict the new Court will be:

John Roberts (Chief Justice)
John Paul Stevens
Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy
David Souter
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
Janice Rogers Brown (replacing Sandra Day O'Connor)

Related Post: Judge John G. Roberts and Sports Law, 7/24/05 (as featured in the Washington Times)

Deion Sanders: All Pro Athletes Should Donate at least $1000 to Hurricane Katrina Relief

For a player/announcer often regarded more for his style than his substance, Baltimore Ravens cornerback Deion "Neon" Sanders has impressively proposed that all pro athletes donate at least $1000 to hurricane relief. Living in Jackson, Mississippi, I have experienced some of Katrina's effects -- we lost power, all phone service, Internet etc. -- but nothing near what the folks in New Orleans and Biloxi have suffered. And after watching TV coverage of New Orleans, it is clear that private donations are needed in order to make-up for the remarkably aloof and belated governmental response. Moreover, Sanders' idea seems especially useful to counter the common perception that athletes are greedy, over-paid, and completely self-interested.

It's interesting to consider the potential effect of Sanders' proposal, and whether players will assent to it. For instance, would Manny Ramirez be willing to give up $1,000? He only makes $136,000 per game (and that's true even if he chooses not to play in a game). All total, he makes $22,00,000 a year. So $1,000 to a guy like Manny Ramirez seems like a fair request for such an unassailable cause.

But how about the minimum salary guys? Take a guy like Will Bynum of the Boston Celtics. A friend of Tony Allen and an undrafted free agent who recently signed a minimum-salary deal with the Celtics, Bynum will make at least the NBA's minimum salary for the 2005-06 season: $399,000. So, if he gives up $1,000, he would be sacrificing less than 0.3% of his salary. Not quite the same drop in the bucket that it is for Ramirez, but a third of one percent still doesn't exactly sound prohibitive.

It will be interesting to watch if Sanders' idea catches-on. Granted, guys who play Arena Football or minor league baseball/basketball/hockey might have to consider their expenses before donating $1,000, although, presumably, they could still help with a smaller amount. In any event, all donations are good, and we encourage you to donate, whether you are a pro athlete or not.

Post Script: A tad off-topic, but I strongly recommend you listen to New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin's radio interview from Thursday night. I was particularly struck by this comment:

I don't want to see anybody do anymore goddamn press conferences. Put a moratorium on press conferences. Don't do another press conference until the resources are in this city. And then come down to this city and stand with us when there are military trucks and troops that we can't even count.

Don't tell me 40,000 people are coming here. They're not here. It's too doggone late. Now get off your asses and do something, and let's fix the biggest goddamn crisis in the history of this country.

Amen. How many more self-congratulatory press conferences do we have to watch before more people die on the ground? Talk about sobering reminders of why so many are turned off by the fakeness of American politics. And we wonder why voter turnout is so low.

Update 12:30 PM: Perhaps the most moving, raw news coverage I have ever seen was on Fox News last night, with Shepard Smith and Geraldo Rivera reporting from New Orleans. They vividly refute the propaganda and platitudes emanating from Washington, and you may never be more angry at our government than after watching this clip (note: the download takes several minutes, even on broadband, but it is well worth the wait).

Is 'Gene Doping' Wrong?

This is the title of an article I recently published with Project Syndicate. Rather than repeat the entire article here, I will just paste links to its various translations:

Is 'Gene Doping' Wrong? (English, by Andy Miah)

¿Es inaceptable el “dopaje genético”? (Spanish, Translated by Carlos Manzano)

Что плохого в «генетическом допинге»? (Russian, Translated by Николай Жданович)

Faut-il condamner le dopage génétique ? (French, Translated by Bérengère Viennot)

Ist „Gendoping“ verwerflich? (German, Translated by Anke Püttmann)

Je „genetický doping“ nesprávný? (Czech, Translated by Jiří Kobělka)

“基因兴奋剂”错了吗？ (Chinese, Translated by 许彬彬)

هل "تنشيط الجينات" خطأ؟ (Arabic, Translated by Ibrahim M. Ali

Boston Celtics' Tony Allen Alleged to Have Directed Shooting in Chicago Restaurant

Tony Allen, who is about to begin his second NBA season, will be interviewed by Chicago police concerning a shooting that occurred in a Chicago restaurant last week. Allen, accompanied by Celtics' teammate Will Bynum and an entourage of about 15 people, is said to have gotten into a heated argument with the victim, Marktwain Johnson, prior to Johnson being shot in the left arm and left side. Johnson alleges that when the verbal argument escalated to a point of serious confrontation, Allen directed someone in his entourage to "F--- him up," and then shots were fired.

It should be noted that Allen has not been charged with any crime. At this point, all we know is that he will be interviewed by the Chicago Police Department about the shooting.

This story is interesting for at least two reasons. One, Allen's exceptional defensive skills have sometimes drawn comparisons to those of Ron Artest. And now, his apparent off-court defensive "skills" might also draw comparisons to those of Artest.

Second, Allen is yet another college graduate (Oklahoma State'04) in the NBA who has apparently gotten in trouble with the law. In my recent study on arrest propensity among NBA players and age/education, I found a peculiar and counter-intuitive trend: NBA players with four years of college represent a disproportionately high percentage of arrested NBA players, while those with no college or one year of college represent a disproportionately low percentage. In his column from last month in the Portland Tribune, Dwight Jaynes discusses the study and offers several explanations.

See 9/24/05 Update: The Tony Allen Story: Gunshots, Punches, and Mysterious Knee Injuries

Sports Law in Action: The Huggins Resignation

On August 24, the University of Cincinnati reached an agreement with Bob Huggins to buy-out the remainder of his contract, thereby ending his tenure as the school's basketball coach. The terms of the buy-out are a bit muddled, but Huggins will receive nearly $3 million as part of the agreement, rather than the $2 million he would have received had no agreement been reached and he had been fired (Koch, "Huggins to receive $3 million buyout," Cinc. Enq., 08/25/05).

So how did the University and Huggins reach this agreement? Thankfully (at least for us), the Cincinnati Enquirer has made available scanned copies of the correspondence sent between Monica Ramai, the University's General Counsel, and Richard Katz, Huggins' attorney. You can access the PDF file here.

The letters, starting in July, begin with a polite tone and a spirit of cooperation. The parties discuss Huggins' tenure at UC, as well as the hopes for an amicable solution, and possibly even a contract extension. Everything changes, though, with the university's letter of August 8. In it, UC takes the gloves off and explains why it no longer wishes to employ its popular coach. The letter states that while Huggins may be a great coach, "his style of leadership is not well suited to advance UC's greater mission," as he has graduated less than 30 percent of his players, and many players have run afoul of the law during his tenure. Due to these "fundamental differences in philosophy," the University thought it best if the two parties went their separate ways.

Huggins, though Katz, fired back four days later, defending Huggins from the university's "absurd contentions," as well as pointing out the success of Jason Maxwell (the only player taken in the 1st round of this year's draft with a college degree) and other basketball graduates. Katz makes it very clear that no one outside of Ohio would have heard of UC without Bob Huggins, and this has helped the university in many areas other than athletics. The letter's tone reminds me of the climatic courtroom scene in A Few Good Men -- Huggins put this university on the map, so how dare you question the manner in which he accomplished this?

The subsequent letters turn to negotiating the specific aspects of the buyout under Ohio law, as well as requests to maintain confidentiality. Finally, the letter of August 23, following a meeting of the parties, gives Huggins the option: we can work something out by 2pm on Wednesday, or you will be terminated on our terms.

As ESPN's Pat Forde writes, Huggins went toe-to-toe with UC president Nancy Zimpher, who began planning his removal in May, and lost. ("Cincy president shows moxie," ESPN.com, 08/24/05). He was finally done in by his players' poor academic performance and troubles with the law, as well as his own run-ins with law enforcement. But firing a popular coach with a long tenure is never an easy move and the University positioned itself well for a victory. The letters provide an insight into how this victory was achieved.

Red Sox Ownership: Yankees Don't "Suck"

In a move designed to make Fenway Park less hostile for opposing teams' fans and families with young children, the Boston Red Sox have decided to ban the popular "Yankees Suck" t-shirts worn by fans who patron the Park. (Scott Van Voorhis, "Sox Eye Stopping Epithet," Boston Herald, 8/25/2005). Although the team has avoided using the word "ban," fans wearing the t-shirt have been asked to turn their shirt inside-out, and, to date, no fan has refused. The t-shirts are sold by independent vendors, and can also be purchased on-line.

So have the constitutional rights of Red Sox fans been violated? Have they lost their freedom of speech? No. Private actors, like sports teams, can restrict speech and messages. They are different from state actors (e.g., the Massachusetts Department of Transportation; the University of Massachusetts) and are not under the same set of constitutional obligations as are those actors.

While this may appear to be a symbolic victory for Yankees fans who venture into Fenway Park and who (quietly) cheer for their team, their team is still 3 and a half games behind the Red Sox in the American League East standings, and are tied with the Oakland Athletics and the Cleveland Indians for the American League wild card (and those two teams have a combined payroll of $96 million, while the Yankees' payroll alone is over $208 million -- I guess $200 million doesn't buy what it used to!).

More on Gender and Coaching

In a follow-up to a post last week on gender and coaching (8/21), the Houston Chronicle has an article today talking about male v. female coaches in women's' professional sports, namely the WNBA (Blinebury, "Manned workforce," Hou. Chron., 08/25/05). As the article points out, in the WNBA's first season, only 1 of the 8 teams had male coaches. Next year, 10 of the 14 franchises will be run by men. As the article asks, is this an indication of "a negative attitude toward female head coaches or a positive statement about the women's game being able to attract interest from high-profile men"?

My thought: probably a little of both. Last year was the first time a female-coached team won the WNBA championship. The previous seven championship teams all had male coaches, including former NBA players Michael Cooper (LA, 01-02) and Bill Laimbeer (Det, 03). This year, the average win percentage for both male and female coaches is around .500, but the two best records belong to male coaches. It remains unclear whether female coaches have been getting a fair shot, but many teams seem to equate success with having a male on the bench.

It also appears, as the article points out, that many NBA teams are using their associated WNBA franchise as a training ground for future NBA coaches. A number of former NBA players, including Cooper, Laimbeer and now Muggsy Bogues, have been given head coaching opportunities in the WNBA without any previous coaching experience. Many, including Cooper, parlay their WNBA experience into NBA assistant coaching jobs. In the long run, this is probably not great for the women's game -- it would be better for coaches to be interested in the WNBA and women's basketball. But on the other hand, many of these coaches have been successful, lending valuable instruction to their players, and perhaps building local interest in the team.

As I pointed out in last week's post, as the number of former women's players increases, it is likely that the number of female coaches will also go up. But ultimately, teams and fans like to win, so unless more teams with female coaches begin winning championships, the WNBA coaching ranks may be predominantly male for years to come.