Changes

[[Liberals]] have also criticized Rehnquist's narrow view of [[recusal]], as Rehnquist rarely recused himself from a case and would criticize recusal or defend non-recusal.  He dismissed calls by [[U.S. Senators]] for Associate Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] to recuse himself in a case involving Scalia's friend Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] in his official rather than personal capacity.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/27/scotus.cheney.scalia/index.html</ref>  Rehnquist did not recuse himself in a case concerning his alma mater [[Stanford University]].<ref>''[[Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ.]]''</ref>

[[Liberals]] have also criticized Rehnquist's narrow view of [[recusal]], as Rehnquist rarely recused himself from a case and would criticize recusal or defend non-recusal.  He dismissed calls by [[U.S. Senators]] for Associate Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] to recuse himself in a case involving Scalia's friend Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] in his official rather than personal capacity.<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/27/scotus.cheney.scalia/index.html</ref>  Rehnquist did not recuse himself in a case concerning his alma mater [[Stanford University]].<ref>''[[Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ.]]''</ref>

== Objection the Falsifiability ==

== Objection to Falsifiability ==

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote against the doctrine of [[falsifiability]] in his dissent from the landmark ''Daubert'' decision, which may have caused little use of that important doctrine in courts:

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote against the doctrine of [[falsifiability]] in his dissent from the landmark ''Daubert'' decision, which may have caused little use of that important doctrine in courts:

{{cquote|The Court speaks of its confidence that federal judges can make a "preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue." ''Ante'', at 592-593. The Court then states that a "key question" to be answered in deciding whether something is "scientific knowledge" "will be whether it can be (and has been) tested." ''Ante'', at 593. Following this sentence are three quotations from treatises, which not only speak of empirical testing, but one of which states that the "'criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.'" ''Ibid.''

{{cquote|The Court speaks of its confidence that federal judges can make a "preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue." ''Ante'', at 592-593. The Court then states that a "key question" to be answered in deciding whether something is "scientific knowledge" "will be whether it can be (and has been) tested." ''Ante'', at 593. Following this sentence are three quotations from treatises, which not only speak of empirical testing, but one of which states that the "'criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.'" ''Ibid.''

''Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.'', 509 U.S. 579, 600-01 (1993) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

''Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.'', 509 U.S. 579, 600-01 (1993) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

==Works==

==Works==

* [http://lc.org/071218TheNotionofaLivingConstitution.doc.pdf The Notion of a Living Constitution] (PDF)

* [http://lc.org/071218TheNotionofaLivingConstitution.doc.pdf The Notion of a Living Constitution] (PDF)