It is hard to imagine a Supreme Court without Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Now, after his death from thyroid cancer, just short of his 81st birthday, the country is asked to do just that.

In his nearly 33 years on the high court — 19 in the role of chief justice — he has watched the mood of the court turn gradually more conservative. Once-lone dissents from his hand have become the backbone of new majorities. Conservative members such as Justice Stephens slowly became liberal voices, not from a personal change of view but from the shift of spectrum.

Hailing from just outside Milwaukee, Mr. Rehnquist was quite the oddity on the court. Curt, almost gruff at times, his efficiency belied a deep respect for the rule of law and for its fair application. It was the extent to which law ruled that was often the most contentious of his views.

When then-Associate Justice Rehnquist joined the court in 1972, his was often the only voice of dissent, railing against what he believed to be the gross abuse of a federal government gone mad with power. As a staunch supporter of states' rights against the federal government's, he was tirelessly on the lookout for government overreach of all kinds. This philosophy earned him the early nickname "Justice Restraint."

Unlike conservatives found in places like FOX News, the chief justice wasn't driven by abstract moral considerations so much as by a deep and abiding respect for the rule of law. He abhorred any type of unnecessary extension of law. In a ruling that has become a litmus test for both liberal and conservative jurists, Roe v. Wade, he argued the court was over-stepping its bounds by privileging rights over law. Rather than discuss the particular moral objections of many modern conservatives in his dissent, he focused primarily on the reach of the Constitution, arguing that while a right to privacy may exist, it is only protected against breach without due process. In the case of Roe, he argued, Texas' legal system afforded a woman her full due-process rights.

While many may object to his interpretation of both the Constitution and Texas statutes, the conviction and single-minded determination behind Mr. Rehnquist's persistent fight in favor of federalism won over even those who sided against him. No justice that served with Mr. Rehnquist found anything but respectful words for him, and even lawyers that argued against him left with deep respect.

As the Supreme Court settled down into its longest stretch without a vacancy, it was easy to see the effect that Mr. Rehnquist was having on the judiciary. The court had grown more conservative, more focused on what he would have considered purely "legal matters." His one-man dissents from the early '70s slowly turned into five-man majorities in the mid-'80s.

More visibly, Mr. Rehnquist took it upon himself to uphold the dignity and decorum of the chamber. He was often the only justice not cracking jokes, instead delving straight to the heart of the problem. And while his colleagues often engaged in games of intellectual one-upmanship, twirling dazzling phrases, puns and humor like batons for the gallery, Mr. Rehnquist rarely engaged in the spectacle.

Certainly he had his contentious side. He opposed desegregation in the '60s and '70s, not uncharacteristically but certainly behind the moral and political views of his contemporaries. Most notoriously, perhaps, he was part of the majority in the hotly debated Bush v. Gore. Yet even this decision is best seen in light of Mr. Rehnquist's long fight for states' rights. When it came down to it, it should have been obvious to even a casual observer where Mr. Rehnquist would stand.

It would be easy to boil down the entire Rehnquist Court and the legacy of the late chief justice to one of turning back the clock. In a way, it was exactly that — he consistently voted in favor of moving away from the growth of the federal government that has characterized the American experience since the Great Depression.

Yet this would be an oversimplification for a man that was often much larger than the robes and role. His was a mind that was simply unique. Uncluttered by particular partisan views, unaffected by purely moral considerations and possessing a powerful ability to cut to the core of any legal argument, he was a man Wisconsin and the entire country should be proud of.

Charles Parsons ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in literature.