Chief Justice Hophead

It's fun what you can learn from declassified documents. Like the fact that in the 1980s, a sitting Associate Justice of the Supreme Court became so dependent on the painkiller Placidyl that he became completely delusional.

The FBI’s 1986 report on (William) Rehnquist’s drug dependence was not released at the time of his confirmation, though some Democratic senators wanted it made public. But it is in Rehnquist’s now-public file, and it contains new details about his behavior during his weeklong hospital stay in December 1981. One physician whose name is blocked out told the FBI that Rehnquist expressed “bizarre ideas and outrageous thoughts. He imagined, for example, that there was a CIA plot against him.”

The doctor said Rehnquist “had also gone to the lobby in his pajamas in order to try to escape.” The doctor said Rehnquist’s delirium was consistent with him suddenly stopping his apparent daily dose of 1400 milligrams of the drug — nearly three times higher than the 500-milligram maximum recommended by physicians. The doctor said, “Any physician who prescribed it was practicing very bad medicine, bordering on malpractice.”

Rehnquist was taking this painkiller, typically used as a short-term treatment, for over 10 years, and at doses three times that of what is recommended. He was so addicted that he had to be weaned off slowly, and for several weeks he spoke from the bench in a slurring speech, a symptom of the withdrawal. In fact, he was confirmed to the Supreme Court and served on it for a decade while having a drug addiction. It was out of public view that entire time, and never uttered during any confirmation hearings for Rehnquist to be an Associate or Chief Justice. In fact, these documents reveal that the FBI and the Department of Justice sought to discredit and intimidate witnesses in those hearings who wished to be critical of Rehnquist.

Obviously, this was a form of malpractice, to improperly dose Mr. Rehnquist to a level he could not possibly resist. But isn't this something the public might want to know about their leaders, those who are supposed sit in judgment on them? And maybe it would be instructive to examine Justice Rehnquist's record on sentencing for nonviolent drug offenders, or medical malpractice, and see how it lined up with his private behavior.

The question may not be "Who else in the government is whacked out on goofballs," but "Who isn't?"