Changes

# Preserving [[federalism]] by limiting the [[Commerce Clause]], which had been used as a "hook" for national legislation of all kinds, unrelated to commerce (''[[U.S. v. Lopez]]'').  This had the effect of checking what had formerly been a fairly comprehensive governmental power over the states.

# Preserving [[federalism]] by limiting the [[Commerce Clause]], which had been used as a "hook" for national legislation of all kinds, unrelated to commerce (''[[U.S. v. Lopez]]'').  This had the effect of checking what had formerly been a fairly comprehensive governmental power over the states.

# Establishing affirmative limits on the federal government's ability to regulate state affairs (National League of Cities).  This interpretation of affirmative limits led to the defeat of elements of the [[Brady Bill]].

# Establishing affirmative limits on the federal government's ability to regulate state affairs (National League of Cities).  This interpretation of affirmative limits led to the defeat of elements of the [[Brady Bill]].

# Emphasizing judicial restraint, as in, the idea that the Court should stay out of matters of political importance where the legislature has clearly spoken.

# Emphasizing judicial restraint, as in, the idea that the Court should stay out of matters of political importance where the legislature has clearly spoken. See also: [[Living Constitution]]

# Adhering to strict construction, as in, a narrow reading of the Constitution, although not as strict as [[Antonin Scalia]]'s [[new textualism]] approach.

# Adhering to strict construction, as in, a narrow reading of the Constitution, although not as strict as [[Antonin Scalia]]'s [[new textualism]] approach.

# Limiting the scope of [[Section 1983]] actions and preventing it from federalizing all tort claims against state officials.  These decisions included:

# Limiting the scope of [[Section 1983]] actions and preventing it from federalizing all tort claims against state officials.  These decisions included:

[[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>http://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>http://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>

== References ==

== References ==

<references/>

<references/>