Justice John Paul Stevens, Originalist

By Amann, Diane Marie | Northwestern University Law Review, April 1, 2012 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Justice John Paul Stevens, Originalist


Amann, Diane Marie, Northwestern University Law Review


ABSTRACT-Commentators, including the author of a recent book on the Supreme Court, often attempt to give each Justice a methodological label, such as "practitioner of judicial restraint," "legal realist," "pragmatist," or "originalist." This Essay first demonstrates that none of the first three labels applies without fail to Justice John Paul Stevens; consequently, it explores the extent to which Justice Stevens's jurisprudence paid heed to the fourth method, "originalism." It looks in particular at Justice Stevens's opinions in recent cases involving firearms, national security, and capital punishment. Somewhat at odds with conventional wisdom, the Essay reveals Justice Stevens as a kind of originalist-as a Justice duty-bound to identify and enforce principles, such as liberty and fairness, that the Framers embedded in the Constitution. To do so, Justice Stevens has practiced a fifth methodology, one that synthesizes many sources and interpretive techniques in an effort to reach a decision that serves a contemporary understanding of justice.

INTRODUCTION

Much attention has been paid to a four-in-one judicial biography with a catchy name, Scorpions.1 As promised by its subtitle, The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices, the book focuses on rivalries among its subjects: Justices Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, and Robert H. Jackson. Retold, for example, is the near mutiny that ensued when Justice Jackson, on leave to serve as Chief Prosecutor in a Nuremberg trial that other Justices condemned, pressed in vain to become the Chief Justice of the United States. Upon such familiar fabric, the author of Scorpions, Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman, embroiders lesser known anecdotes: for instance, the curious fact that another Nuremberg veteran, secretary Elsie Douglas, was the sole witness to the terminal attacks that felled both Justice Jackson and Justice Frankfurter.

Scorpions provides an elliptical frame of reference for discussing the topic of this Essay, Justice John Paul Stevens's methods of interpretation. This is because of two omissions, one obvious and one less so. Glaring is Feldman's decision to omit much mention at all of the other four men whom President Franklin D. Roosevelt put on the U.S. Supreme Court- among them Justice Wiley B. Rutledge, Jr., an early and influential mentor to Stevens.2 The second omission pertains to Feldman's decision to confine the discussion of legal philosophies largely to his subjects' lifetimes. Scarcely explored are linkages between the intellectual struggles of midtwentieth- century Justices and those of their twenty-first-century successors-including Justice Stevens and a colleague with whom he frequently sparred, Justice Antonin Scalia.3 Given their relevance to the understanding of Justice Stevens's methods of interpretation, both Scorpions omissions will be discussed in turn.

With regard to the first and most obvious of these ellipses: A couple of FDR Justices seem particularly ill served by relegation to the ranks of the "not great." One is Justice Frank Murphy.4 Even ignoring this Michigander's long career of public service before joining the bench, his nine years on the Court merit respect. In dozens of opinions, Justice Murphy spoke out for Americans disadvantaged by governmental action, and he did so with an empathy alien to the irascible Justice Douglas, Feldman's preferred champion of an expansive rights doctrine.5 Consider Korematsu v. United States, the 1944 case involving a native-born American of Japanese heritage who had suffered criminal conviction for defying government-mandated exclusion.6 Justice Murphy refused to defer to a military order that, as he saw it, "falls into the ugly abyss of racism."7 That refusal ran counter to the positions of all but two other Justices and to the vast weight of public opinion in that time of World War II.8 Yet today Justice Murphy's short dissent bears marks of candor and greatness lacking in Justice Black's majority opinion (which Justice Douglas joined), in Justice Frankfurter's concurrence, and even in Justice Jackson's dissent.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Justice John Paul Stevens, Originalist
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?