We Dissent: Talking Back to the Rehnquist Court, Eight Cases That Subverted Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

The lawyers and legal commentators who contribute to We Dissent unanimously agree that during Chief Justice William Rehnquist's nineteen-year tenure, the Supreme Court failed to adequately protect civil liberties and civil rights. This is evident in majority opinions written for numerous cases heard by the Rehnquist Court, and eight of those cases are re-examined here, with contributors offering dissents to the Court's decisions. The Supreme Court opinions criticized in We Dissent suggest that the Rehnquist Court placed the interests of government above the people, and as the dissents in this

Alden v. Maine : sovereign immunity : a vestige of monarchy inconsistent with democratic values / Erwin Chemerinsky -- Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes : betraying freedom of political expression and undermining democracy / Jamin Raskin -- Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye : the Supreme Court's intent doctrine : undermining viable discrimination claims and remedies for people of color / Eva Paterson and Susan Kiyomi Serrano -- United States v. Whren : The Fourth Amendment problem with pretextual traffic stops / Tracey Maclin -- County Of Sacramento v. Lewis : protecting life and liberty under the constitution : reckless indifference to life does not shock the conscience of the Supreme Court / Michael Avery -- Chavez v. Martinez : the court fails to hold interrogation by means of torture is unconstitutional / Marjorie Cohn -- Saucier v. Katz : qualified immunity as a doctrine of dilution of constitutional rights / David Rudovsky -- Strickland v. Washington : gutting Gideon and providing cover for incompetent counsel / Abbe Smith