Republican Presidents do not appoint judges like Stevens anymore.
Traces his ancestors. P. 5
Came from a family of Republicans. P. 17
Undergrad at the U. of Chicago. P. 33
In the Navy! P. 35
Choosing Northwestern law over the U of Chicago. P. 53
President Gerald Ford nominated John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court seat being vacated by the legendary liberal icon William O. Douglas. He was confirmed by the Senate on December 17, 1975, and joined the court two days later.
President Ford came to the court for the swearing in ceremony, which was short and sweet, but was also profoundly significant because it exemplified the independence of the judicial branch.
President Ford had followed his constitutional duty to nominate Judge Douglas's successor, attended the swearing in, and then withdrew from the process as his duty had ended.
Justice Stevens says that "at no time---either before or after I took the oath of office---did President Ford seek to influence my performance of my job."
Imagine the Constitutionally mandated independence of the branches of the federal government. Imagine the integrity of the process of nomination and consent. Imagine our government working the way it is supposed to work.
Imagine as John Lennon would say. We can only imagine today.
Justice John Paul Stevens, The Making of a Justice, p. 133-34
Justice Stevens supported Roe based on liberty rather privacy.
"I thus endorsed the separate opinions of John Harlan in "Griswold" and Potter Stewart in "Roe"---both of whom had relied on liberty rather than privacy --- as the correct basis for their concurring votes.
Criticism of Roe became more widespread perhaps in part because opponents made the incorrect argument that only 'a right to 'privacy,' unmentioned in the Constitution, supported the holding. Correctly basing the woman's right to have an abortion in 'liberty' rather than 'privacy' should undercut that criticism."
Justice John Paul Stevensons in "The Making of a Justice" page 151.
He defends Bork. Oh well, he wasn't perfect! P. 234
On the other hand, Justice Stevens has kind things to say about Robert Bork.
You Supreme Court fans will recall that President Reagan nominated Bork to replace the retiring Lewis Powell in the summer of 1987. Democrats mounted a furious attack to defeat the hapless Bork in the Senate 58 to 42 mostly because, as Stevens notes, it was believed that Bork would vote to undo Roe v. Wade.
Justice Stevens says that Bork was a distinguished Marine Corps vet, that he was the best Solicitor General who served during his time on the bench, and that he was eminently qualified.
But Bork had an unruly looking beard, talked too much during his confirmation hearings, and led Democrats to believe that his views on the Equal Protection Clause were idiosyncratic.
Attacks on Bork were misleading with unfair comments on his character. Liberals nitpicked him to death as if he were a legal outlier. As was said eventually, Robert Bork was Borked.
Stevens says that the Bork experience started the view that a candidate's political views are more important than qualifications. As though if a candidate is qualified he/she should be confirmed regardless of perceived political views.
Those days over OVER, Justice Stevens. I humbly disagree with the great Justice here, if I understand him correctly. A candidate can be technically qualified, a President can nominate whomever he/she wishes, but the Senate can consider the entire record of a nominee including the nominee's perceived politics and character.
-Justice John Paul Stevens, The Making of a Justice, p. 234
Touching visit to Normandy. P. 236
Offended by Reagan swearing in Justice Kennedy at the White House. P. 237
Rejects Scalia's view that independent prosecutors are not necessary. P. 239
Flag-burning is speech and therefore First Amendment protected. P. 248
Justice Marshall supporting Stare Decisis. P. 269
President Ford came to the court for the swearing in ceremony, which was short and sweet, but was also profoundly significant because it exemplified the independence of the judicial branch.
President Ford had followed his constitutional duty to nominate Judge Douglas's successor, attended the swearing in, and then withdrew from the process as his duty had ended.
Justice Stevens says that "at no time---either before or after I took the oath of office---did President Ford seek to influence my performance of my job."
Imagine the Constitutionally mandated independence of the branches of the federal government. Imagine the integrity of the process of nomination and consent. Imagine our government working the way it is supposed to work.
Imagine as John Lennon would say. We can only imagine today.
Justice John Paul Stevens, The Making of a Justice, p. 133-34
Justice Stevens supported Roe based on liberty rather privacy.
"I thus endorsed the separate opinions of John Harlan in "Griswold" and Potter Stewart in "Roe"---both of whom had relied on liberty rather than privacy --- as the correct basis for their concurring votes.
Criticism of Roe became more widespread perhaps in part because opponents made the incorrect argument that only 'a right to 'privacy,' unmentioned in the Constitution, supported the holding. Correctly basing the woman's right to have an abortion in 'liberty' rather than 'privacy' should undercut that criticism."
Justice John Paul Stevensons in "The Making of a Justice" page 151.
He defends Bork. Oh well, he wasn't perfect! P. 234
On the other hand, Justice Stevens has kind things to say about Robert Bork.
You Supreme Court fans will recall that President Reagan nominated Bork to replace the retiring Lewis Powell in the summer of 1987. Democrats mounted a furious attack to defeat the hapless Bork in the Senate 58 to 42 mostly because, as Stevens notes, it was believed that Bork would vote to undo Roe v. Wade.
Justice Stevens says that Bork was a distinguished Marine Corps vet, that he was the best Solicitor General who served during his time on the bench, and that he was eminently qualified.
But Bork had an unruly looking beard, talked too much during his confirmation hearings, and led Democrats to believe that his views on the Equal Protection Clause were idiosyncratic.
Attacks on Bork were misleading with unfair comments on his character. Liberals nitpicked him to death as if he were a legal outlier. As was said eventually, Robert Bork was Borked.
Stevens says that the Bork experience started the view that a candidate's political views are more important than qualifications. As though if a candidate is qualified he/she should be confirmed regardless of perceived political views.
Those days over OVER, Justice Stevens. I humbly disagree with the great Justice here, if I understand him correctly. A candidate can be technically qualified, a President can nominate whomever he/she wishes, but the Senate can consider the entire record of a nominee including the nominee's perceived politics and character.
-Justice John Paul Stevens, The Making of a Justice, p. 234
Touching visit to Normandy. P. 236
Offended by Reagan swearing in Justice Kennedy at the White House. P. 237
Rejects Scalia's view that independent prosecutors are not necessary. P. 239
Flag-burning is speech and therefore First Amendment protected. P. 248
Justice Marshall supporting Stare Decisis. P. 269
Justice John Paul Stevens makes clear his view of Justice Thomas. Even though he admires Thomas's life history, and I can understand that, he says that the appointment of Thomas "resulted in the most important change in the court's jurisprudence that took place during my lifetime." P. 273
Though Stevens says that he and Thomas remained friends, the two disagreed on almost every important ruling.
I get the impression that he thinks that Thomas has highly idiosyncratic views, even more severe than Scalia, and that he is almost always wrong. Hard right views is the way we mere mortals would phrase it.
Justice Clarence Thomas is one of the most dangerous people in our country today. Easy to see from Justice Stevens's book.
Friends with Clarence Marshall despite differences of opinions. P. 274
Casey affirms Role on the basis of liberty. P. 282
Justice Stevens's blow-by-blow account of the lawless 5 to 4 decision in Bush v. Gore in 2000 explains it all.
His conclusion in 2000:
"Although we may never know with complete certainty the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." P. 373
And concluding in 2019:
".. . . . i remain of the view that the Court has not fully recovered from the damage it inflicted on itself in Bush vs. Gore." P. 374
It was this decision which began the current descent of the Supreme Court into partisan destruction.
Justice Stevens makes clear the fraudulent nature of the Heller decision.
He notes that Congress passed a law in 1792 that makes clear the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
"That statute quite clearly identifies the type of weapon which which the members of a well-regulated Militia were being armed. Consistent with the text of the 2nd Amendment, it does not mention weapons of self-defense such as handguns."
He goes on to cover additional historical evidence to buttress the point.
He points out that when he joined the Court in 1975 the unanimous decision in United States vs. Miller established that the 2nd only applied only to weapons used by militias.
"Heller is unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Court announced during my tenure on the bench."
Nino Scalia's 5-4 con job is what he's talking about.
You gun lovers can believe what you desire---guns for everybody!--- but not on the basis of the clear intent of the Second Amendment. Your fight is with Justice Stevens who served on the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010.
-Justice John Paul Stevens in The Making of a Justice
Justice Stevens wrote the dissent in the Citizens United case. His account of how the ruling came down details the horrendous particulars of how the ruling came down. The right 5 people were on the court at the time to make it happen. Five is the magic number on the Supreme Court. Five people can do anything they please. Constitutional interpretation is in the mind of the interpreter.
Justice John Paul Stevens, The Making of a Justice, p. 500-503
Justice John Paul Stevens, The Making of a Justice, p. 500-503
No comments:
Post a Comment