Howard Bashman flags this NY Times interview with Chief Justice Rehnquist about his new book on the 1876 election (when he was just a boy...). Two exchanges worth flagging (questioner in italics, Rehnquist not):

There is a forthcoming review in The Nation by Eric Foner, a professor at Columbia University.

He's a recognized historian.

What praise!! I think he went a little overboard there. A recognized historian. We should all aspire to receive such lofty compliments on our work.

What is your next book going to be?

I don't know there is going to be a next book. I think maybe some sort of a cartoon history of the court. That has been done, but it's not been done with a very good text. I've always enjoyed cartoons. That's one of the things I would like to have been able to do, I would like to have the ability to draw.

I thought you meant draw them yourself.

No! No, it would be a terrible flop.

A cartoon history of the court? That's actually kind of interesting. I read a cartoon history of the assassination of President Garfield that was quite good. I'd read one about the Supreme Court, with text by Rehnquist. Can't imagine all that much to illustrate though. They sit on a bench and listen to stuff. I guess you could illustrate the cases. Some of them. Roe v. Wade could have a lovely illustration. Bowers v. Hardwick. The recent affirmative action cases (a sea of white people standing in front of an academic building?). But some, I don't know. Marbury v. Madison -- how do you illustrate judicial review? Could illustrate Bush v. Gore by showing that guy peering through the hanging chad. That image needs to be brough back into circulation. Interesting task for a cartoonist. Heck, if I were a cartoonist, I'd be trying to get a hold of Rehnquist right about now. But I can't draw. Oh well. Lost opportunity.