Uneven Stevens: On the Former Justice's Recent Outbursts
In recent years, American political life has been marked by an increased level of political polarization. In Congress, the ever-sharper division between Democrats and Republicans has blocked any sensible political consensus. The pains of partisanship are also (echoed on the Supreme Court, where there is now a perfect alignment: the four liberal members of the Court were all appointed by Democratic presidents, and the five conservative members were appointed by Republican presidents. The current alignment represents a genuine departure from the past when liberal justices from Earl Warren, to William Brennan, to David Souter, to John Paul Stevens, were all appointed by Republican presidents.
At the present moment, the most pronounced symbol of our political unrest is Justice Stevens, the recent author of the much discussed book, Five Chiefs, which I devote my weekly Defining Ideas column to. In that book, he reflects on five Chief Justices—Fred Vinson, Earl Warren, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist, and John Roberts—whom he knew. Learning something about their personalities fills in the gaps in our knowledge of these important public officials. On the other hand, delving into the judicial output of the Supreme Court has a real downside. Justice Stevens’ public comments will have, I fear, the effect of diminishing the Supreme Court and, alas, of Justice Stevens himself. Whatever the merits of the book, the multiple interviews that he has given about the book have distilled its thesis to a few quotations that have the unintended consequence of conveying the weakness of his intellectual thought.
In making this claim, I do not want to be understood as disagreeing with whatever Justice Stevens writes. Quite the opposite. As a classical liberal thinker, I often break sharply with the so-called conservative majority on a wide number of issues, and think that some of Stevens’ opinions should be regarded as landmarks in the law. I will discuss two of them briefly, before turning to the ways in which I think that his popular remarks, which have been widely quoted, have done real disservice to public discourse about the Supreme Court. I explain further over at Defining Ideas.
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Jun '11
Re: Uneven Stevens: On the Former Justice's Recent Outbursts
From your Defining Ideas piece: &
"Taken as a whole, what is so troublesome about Justice Stevens’ general views is the unmistakable sense that he has erased the line between what he thinks of as politically unwise and constitutionally required. Indeed, on his view of the world, constitutional law seems to depend on his own sense of right or wrong. That attitude is surely evident by his vote to concur in the decision of Justice Anthony Kennedy in Kennedy v. Louisiana to the effect that the Eighth Amendment prohibited the use of the death penalty for child rape on
the ground that he, Justice Stevens, can best detect the evolving
moral sentiments in the United States, when popular opinion runs
pretty strongly the other way."
In one paragraph you have nicely summarized the worldview of the Left: if we can't get our way in these (damnable) representative institutions (legislatures), we'll do so in the courts because our individual feelings of what is right and wrong must prevail over everything else. Sad to see Mr. Justice Stevens sucked into this pathetic and narcissistic view of the "proper" role of the judiciary.
Edited on Oct 18, 2011 at 3:51amJun '11
Re: Uneven Stevens: On the Former Justice's Recent Outbursts
Ps, does anyone else run into serious formatting issues when trying to post comments from an iPad?
Jul '10
Re: Uneven Stevens: On the Former Justice's Recent Outbursts
"As a classical liberal thinker, I often break sharply with the so-called conservative majority on a wide number of issues . . ."
So do your fellow RINOs John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
May '10
Re: Uneven Stevens: On the Former Justice's Recent Outbursts
Hardly think McCain and Graham are classical liberal thinkers, Jerry.
The judiciary, more so than the legislative and certainly more so than the executive, has a power that is largely dependent on willing acquiescence, created by respect for the institution. This is why Obama was playing with fire when he scolded the Court to their faces at the State of the Union. And of course the Press, being distracted by their then shiny object of Obama, found it disrespectful that Justice Alito dared to shake his head at the Great Man.
Not sure that the dignity of the Court is enhanced by the crotchety ramblings of Andy Rooney in a bow tie.
Sep '10
Re: Uneven Stevens: On the Former Justice's Recent Outbursts
This may sound like picking on Democrats, but the polarization of politics has IMHO found more traction with Democratic "statesmen" than with the GOP.
Compare the behavior of Mr. Carter and Mr. Clinton to that of Ford, Reagan, Bush, & Bush after they left office. I don't mean to say that C and C are egregious, but there is a definite difference in their willingness to get into the dirt.
Additionally, Mr. Obama, the great campaigner, show little of the statesman quality that Mr. Bush showed. Mr. Obama is attacking Eric Cantor, Ms. Pelosi thinks we want "women to die on the floor". I think there is a real difference and Mr Stevens is one of many.
Sep '10
Re: Uneven Stevens: On the Former Justice's Recent Outbursts
So now the circle is not just contorted but irrevocably broken: the Court is as self-centered a political a body as any in our tripartite government. This rupture is evident in a recent episode of the TV show Harry's Law (Harry, apparently Harriet, is played by the wonderful Kathy Bates) about a plaintiff's attorney in Cincinnati who defends the underdog. In this episode, Harry defends a teenage girl who writes a snarky blog in which she outed another teen girl for being gay. The closeted teen promptly killed herself. Not once in their closings did either the DA (an equally tough Camryn Manheim) or Harry mention the law. The DA forthrightly said there's too much gay bashing and that's why the defendant must be convicted. Harry claimed the blogger was no worse than the larger blogging culture. Contrast that with the 1980s show LA Law, which though focused on culture issues nonetheless based all arguments on the law. Sure the firm lawyers contorted the law to suit their purposes, but it was always their beginning and end point, not ridiculous data points about gay bashing being an epidemic. At least Harry won.
May '10
Re: Uneven Stevens: On the Former Justice's Recent Outbursts
Ross Conatser:
Compare the behavior of Mr. Carter and Mr. Clinton to that of Ford, Reagan, Bush, & Bush after they left office. I don't mean to say that C and C are egregious, but there is a definite difference in their willingness to get into the dirt. · Oct 18 at 6:54am
Oh no, please, please tell me this all does not mean Lady Gaga is going to have a Marilyn Monroe moment with Justice Stevens any moment now.