Posted by wlansden |
Filed under commentary, supreme court, news
By James Bowden
As we’ve noted, the seat on the Supreme Court that Justice John Paul Stevens will vacate this summer is notable for the longevity of its occupants over the last 100 years (give or take). But Justice Stevens, like Justices Douglas and Brandeis before him, is notable for more than just the length of his tenure. All three were capable and influential voices on the court – and at times their jurisprudence stirred up more than a little bit of controversy.
Justice Brandeis was an ardent and powerful supporter of the right to privacy and freedom of speech on the Court. His successful career in private practice featured aggressive advocacy, often offered pro-bono, against abuses by large corporations and business interests, which gained him fame as “The People’s Lawyer” and, “A Robin Hood of the Law,” not to mention significant opposition to his confirmation as a Justice. Justice McReynolds (rabid anti-Semite and general crank that he was) refused to speak to Brandeis throughout his tenure on the court, and supposedly walked out of the room whenever Brandeis spoke.
Justice Douglas was by reputation one of the most brilliant justices ever to serve on the Court, and wrote many influential opinions supporting civil liberties and environmentalism, some of which he is rumored to have drafted on the backs of napkins over a beer. His position as the liberal lion of the court and a tenacious advocate for an expansive interpretation of the First Amendment, not to mention his writing for Playboy Magazine and his fourth marriage to a college-age cocktail waitress, provided the ammunition his opponents in Congress needed to mount an eventually unsuccessful impeachment attempt.
Justice Stevens, a moderate Midwestern Republican and son of a wealthy family, was nominated by a Republican President. Despite this and although his judicial temperament is best described as incrementalist, Stevens has come to be recognized as the leader of the court’s liberal wing, and has written vociferous dissents highly critical of the Court’s current conservative majority, most notably in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. ___ (2010). However, despite his conservative critics, Justice Stevens apparently did not disappoint the President who nominated him; speaking of his legacy soon before his death in 2005, President Ford said of Stevens, “I am prepared to allow history’s judgment of my term in office to rest (if necessary, exclusively) on my nomination thirty years ago of John Paul Stevens to the U.S. Supreme Court.” That is without a doubt one of the highest compliments I’ve ever heard paid.
Stevens’ seat provides a unique view of history. Over the past 96 years, a collection of people who would fit comfortably in a subcompact car presided from that seat over the growth of a country from a new insurgent on the world scene to preeminence as a world superpower, through the trials and triumphs of modern age and beyond. Their decisions and judicial careers were frequently reflections of the turbulent world outside the doors at One First Street. Justice Stevens’ successor has quite an act to follow, but I wouldn’t be worried about having an opportunity to leave a mark – the seat he or she will take has a good track record for providing plenty of sound and fury to keep the long voyage exciting.
Currently rated 4.8 by 4 people
- Currently 4.75/5 Stars.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5