Final answer:
Chief Justice Rehnquist believed that the Supreme Court should primarily intervene in cases of injustice that have national significance, showing a tendency towards judicial restraint and emphasizing the maintenance of institutional legitimacy and broad legal principles, rather than rectifying individual cases of injustice.
Step-by-step explanation:
Chief Justice William Rehnquist was known for his view that the Supreme Court should not intervene in every case of injustice, but rather focus on cases with national significance. This perspective reflects a certain judicial restraint, believing that not all expansion of rights should occur without balancing such expansion with the government's need to govern and serve the broader societal purpose. For example, while the Court has upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, it has also placed limits, such as protecting individuals with cognitive disabilities from being executed, balancing individual rights with societal needs of retribution and deterrence.
Rehnquist's approach emphasizes the role of the Court in continuously reviewing government laws, actions, and policy changes. However, he did not advocate for the Court to involve itself in individual cases of injustice unless they had implications that went beyond the individuals involved. The Court's concern with institutional legitimacy and sustaining a functioning governmental framework often limited its interventions to circumstances of broad legal repercussions or constitutional significance.