- Last words.
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard from Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna and right-wing activist attorney James Bopp in oral arguments for Doe v. Reed, a case with vast ramifications for open government laws around the nation. But amid all the hubbub over legal precedent, alleged political intimidation, and Justice Antonin Scalia’s impressively harsh tongue, another significant fact got short shrift: yesterday was Justice John Paul Stevens’s final oral argument.
He turned ninety earlier this month, and he will retire this summer after 35 years on the Supreme Court.
Stevens is known as the leader of the liberal wing of the court, which is slightly ironic considering that he was appointed by Republican president Gerald Ford. (Although, to be fair, the Republican Party of those days had room for moderates, and even liberals, unlike today’s party of monolithic right-wing extremism.) He has a reputation for listening carefully to both sides, and to his fellow justices (so he can attempt to sway the swing votes later), a habit that often prevents him from saying much during an oral argument’s opening half.
The habit held true for Doe v. Reed, although Stevens spoke even less than usual during his last day on the bench. Throughout the morning he sat silently to the right of Chief Justice John Roberts. He looked small, even shrunken, peering down at the scene before him, his signature bow tie just barely visible.
Stevens only made one point during Doe v. Reed, but his contribution emphasized the civility he brings to the Supreme Court, a trait that will be sorely missed when he is gone. It came while Bopp argued with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg about the public’s interest in keeping petition signatures open to viewing (she argued it was a good way to prevent fraud, Bopp equivocated). Then Stevens finally piped up.
JUSTICE STEVENS: Isn’t there another possible public interest? Would it be legitimate public interest to say, I would like to know who signed the petition, because I would like to try to persuade them that their views should be modified? Is there public interest in encouraging debate on the underlying issue?
MR. BOPP: Well, it’s possible, but we think this information is marginal. In other words, the—it’s much more important—
JUSTICE STEVENS: Well, it does identify people who have a—a particular point of view on a public issue. And if you have the other point of view, don’t you have an interest in finding out who you would like to convince to change their minds?
MR. BOPP: Well, we—we think it’s a—a very marginal interest.
This exchange highlights how out of place Stevens is in contemporary American politics. Can you imagine any other major political player pondering the social utility of citizens calling each other up and discussing their disagreements sensibly? While I love the idea, I can’t imagine it would be very popular—like Bopp, I imagine it would be “a marginal interest.”
But the fact that this is Stevens’s final question on the Supreme Court feels fitting to me. He goes out suggesting that perhaps citizens, and partisans, just want to do what he has been doing his whole career: respectfully trying to bring others over to his side of an issue.
The point is right on message, considering that’s EXACTLY why advocates of same sex marriage want the list made public. They want to talk to their opponents and ask them why they are so opposed to their happiness.
Stevens has proven a worthy successor in the Supreme Court seat once held by Yakima’s own William O. Douglas, and Louis Brandeis.
What a lovely post. Thanks for everything, Justice Stevens.
Stevens has been my favorite justice for a long time. Although there have been some decent articles about his legacy, I want to see more in the way of reflections and tributes. Excellent post.
Happy retirement Stevens! I only hope Obama appoints a justice nearly as good as you!
It’s not a “marginal interest” at all for political organizers. It’s data.
@6 exactly. Personally, I’d *LOVE* to see all the R-71 signers broken down and sorted by zip code, to see where the most support came from by that level of breakdown–and the same again for other initiatives.
“But people who disagree with us might want to TALK to us! That threatens our views!”
I don’t disagree with this post, but guess how Dom and The Stranger actually handled this situation:
Not exactly what I would consider “respectfully trying to bring others over to his side of an issue.”
@9, yeah, but Dominic isn’t a supreme court justice. He’s a writer for an alternative paper whose stock and trade is to be confrontational and in your face. There is nothing in the constitution that requires all of us to be respectful at all times.
Excellent post.
Stevens has his whole life ahead of him…
I wonder what he’ll do next?
Also, isn’t the whole POINT of a peoples’ petition it’s public-ness? The PUBLIC saying we voters need to take action because the legislature needs to know this is important and worthy of a special referendum?
Plus, people seem to forget signing a petition doesn’t necessarily indicate which way you’ll ultimately vote. Although they are rare, there are people who believe that gay civil rights should be open to public referendum even if they personally plan to vote for marriage equality.
@9: How is it disrespectful? He clearly wouldn’t have just called the 4 people, he would have called several. He also no doubt got their permission to use their names. He also presented a deliberately but transparently extreme example of their opinions, unfiltered.
Sounds respectful to me.
If airing one’s opinion is disrespectful, then hold no opinions on anything, ever.
i thought that was the whole point of seeing the names. to enlighten them, if it’s possible.
The reason our political system is broken is that this use of data would be a “marginal interest.” Even with social utilities, email, phone trees, etc… the best way to get anything that requires agreement done is to just sit down and talk with people. And, believe it or not, it’s what everyone craves: a conversation where one is taken seriously, treated with worth, and engaged as a member of a community. If we can do that, and stop yelling and dancing like monkeys on the TV, we can make America a much better country. So, can we?
I adore Justice Stevens. When he retires officially, I am going to bawl. He has blistering dissents and wonderful majority opinions.