John Paul Stevens Archives

Justice John Paul Stevens: Still Dissenting

May 3, 2011 by Joan Biskupic

Add another critic to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Connick v. Thompson: Retired Justice Stevens on Monday night denounced his old colleagues for ruling that a former Louisiana Death Row inmate could not sue prosecutors who had concealed blood evidence that might have shown his innocence.

In that 5-4 case in late March, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the conservative majority and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for liberal dissenters. (I referred in an earlier post to Ginsburg’s passionate dissent from the bench in the case focused on prosecutors’ duty to turn over exculpatory evidence.)

The Many Narratives of a Court Nomination, and Obama’s ‘Problem-Solving Orientation’

April 27, 2010 by Joan Biskupic

With only two women among the nine justices, one line of thinking goes, President Obama will pick a woman. No, another argument goes, he would not feel so compelled and, anyway, he should save his strongest woman candidate for when pioneering feminist Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 77, retires.

Could Freud Help the Supreme Court?

April 23, 2010 by Joan Biskupic

It has now been two weeks since Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement, and from last year’s pattern and what White House aides are saying now, numerous interviews already have been conducted. About ten people are in the mix, with three inside favorites: U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan and U.S. Appeals Court Judges Diane Wood, of Chicago, and Merrick Garland, of Washington, D.C. Last year, within about two weeks of Justice David Souter’s May 1 retirement announcement, then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor had been interviewed by a half dozen top administration lawyers. President Obama interviewed her on May 21, offered her the job on May 25, and made his choice public on May 26. Read her dramatic recounting of his call to her here.

As a New Selection Process Begins, a Look at How John Paul Stevens Was Chosen

April 10, 2010 by Joan Biskupic

Now that President Obama has officially launched the process to replace Justice Stevens, who announced his impending retirement on Friday, it is interesting to recall the approach President Ford took in 1975. While it represents a more non-ideological model than today’s Supreme Court selection process, there are likely to be similarities in administration screening, timing — and an eye to the political atmosphere in the nation.

Justice William O. Douglas, who had been in failing health for months and being pressured by some colleagues to retire, wrote to Ford on November 12, 1975 to let him know he would step down. (Douglas had served since 1939; he holds the record for longevity on the bench.)

“Do you think there is any chance Stevens will stay?”

April 6, 2010 by Joan Biskupic

A colleague who covers the Court asked that in an e-mail today. He said he had thought that Justice John Paul Stevens was ready to retire at the end of this term but said the justice’s recent remarks might be read as a signal he truly is undecided and may stay. My response: He’s leaving.

I base that not only on what Justice Stevens has said in interviews but that he is even giving interviews.

Scalia v. Stevens: They Can’t Help Themselves

April 1, 2010 by Joan Biskupic

As Supreme Court justices circulate draft opinions among themselves and respond to each other’s writing, no two justices engage in a tit-for-tat like Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens.

These defenders of conservatism and liberalism, respectively, disagree on big issues, of course, but they are also the two most likely to tussle down in the weeds — on the meaning of a statute, interpretation of precedent or nuances of a legal test. It is not unusual for Scalia to make some assertion that sets off Stevens, who then fires back in his opinion, which prompts Scalia to return the volley, which gets Stevens going again.

Retiring Supreme Court Justices: When They Say When They Are Going

February 16, 2010 by Joan Biskupic

I know exactly where I was when I first saw the headline of an ABC news story earlier this month that said, “White House Prepares for the Possibility of Two Supreme Court Vacancies.” I was in the San Francisco radio studio of Ronn Owens about to go on the air to talk about Justice Scalia, the Citizens United case and current term. Owens said the ABC story had just appeared on-line that February 4 morning and predicted the retirement subject would draw calls. “Two vacancies?” I said doubtfully. “Really?” As people who have since read the posting by longtime ABC producer Ariane de Vogue know, it said: “Court watchers believe two of the more liberal members of the court, justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, could decide to step aside for reasons of age and health.”

The Religion of Current Supreme Court Justices: Could it Affect the Choice of the Next Nominee?

February 4, 2010 by Joan Biskupic

Since I’ve been on the road talking about Justice Scalia, I’ve consistently been asked about the fact that six of the nine justices are Roman Catholic and about how that affects the Court’s opinions, particularly those of Scalia. I devoted a chapter to Scalia and religion — Passions of His Mind — and, despite how touchy the intersection of personal belief and judicial views can be, I am ready to field these questions.

Citizens United v. FEC: The Roles of Justices Scalia and Stevens

January 24, 2010 by Joan Biskupic

As legal commentators continue to debate last Thursday’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, I want to add a few observations related to Justices Scalia and Stevens. As Stevens read his poignant — sometimes halting — dissenting statement from the bench, he noted that the “seed that flowered” in the majority opinion had been planted by dissenters in the 1990 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. In his written opinion Thursday, Stevens took specific aim at Scalia– an architect of the view that prevailed last week.