In Praise of John Paul Stevens Our columnist, a former clerk for Stevens, says the Supreme Court justice has had a profound impact on every major issue of our time.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP The quintessential nice guy

May 5 - Amid rampant speculation about the future of the Supreme Court, the nation's most-influential and least-appreciated justice, John Paul Stevens, quietly turned 85 last month.

After nearly 30 years on the court, John Paul Stevens remains one of the country's least-known justices. With his bow-tied, Midwestern demeanor and perpetual air of genial bemusement, he is the quintessential nice guy, the sort you'd bump into on an airplane or at the corner store. He loves to tell of moving to Washington, and, on a bank application, listing "Justice" as his occupation. The skeptical bank clerk replied, "OK, last week, I had a guy who said 'Peace'."

Although few may recognize him, Stevens is one of the nation's great justices. His contributions to American law and society are enormous. On every major issue of our time, his voice and mind have had a profound impact. Frequently starting from the perch of a lonely dissent or quirky concurrence, his analyses often have won the day, and, even when they have not, they frequently have framed the terms of debate.

As a former law clerk to Justice Stevens, I am far from impartial. But a dispassionate appraisal of Stevens's record on the court unmistakably demonstrates the quiet, overwhelming dominance he has displayed. There is a lot of talk about the Rehnquist Court-and sometimes even of the O'Connor Court because of the swing vote employed by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But what we actually have seen, on many issues, is the emergence of the Stevens Court.

ONLINE MAIL CALL Our reader's respond to Cliff Sloan's praise of John Paul Stevens

When the Supreme Court struck down a criminal ban on gay consensual sex two years ago, the court relied heavily on Justice Stevens's previous vigorous dissent from a decision upholding a criminal anti-gay law 17 years earlier. The court's opinion said that Stevens had been correct, and that his analysis now "should control." Just weeks ago, when the Supreme Court struck down capital punishment for those under 18, it adopted the position of an earlier dissent that Stevens had joined. And, three years ago, when the court invalidated executions for the mentally retarded, it likewise heeded the position outlined in an earlier Stevens dissent-this time in a new opinion for the court by Stevens himself.

CONTINUED: Steven's Views Haven't Always Carried the Day

Print this

Email this