Jump to content

Talk:John Paul Stevens/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Segal-Cover score

The scale goes from 0 (most conservative) to 1 (most liberal). How does he manage to have a negative score? I'm going to change it to the 0.250 that the document found on the S-C score says.

--Minor point, but the article refers to Justice Stevens as having the second highest S-C score of the current incumbent Justices the court. To my knowledge this is inaccurate as Justices Breyer, Kennedy and Souter all have higher S-C scores. This should probably be removed.

I agree. I wish you would have signed your comment, though. The article says that he has the second-highest S-C score, but the link shows that his S-C is squarely in the middle -- below Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and even Kennedy. Unless there is an objection, I'm changing it in a week.Tony 14:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
As there were no comments, I corrected the S-C score sentence.Tony 14:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

died?

well he hasn't died yet. i think the died tag is a bit preemptive. -Nosaj56 01:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping someone might be able to include more info on his legal philosophy. Scalia and some of the others are a little more well done. --Jaysscholar 00:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Current Event?

Aside from the fact that if John Roberts isn't confirmed by October, making him acting Chief, why is Justice Stevens marked as a current event?

removed --69.94.194.3 20:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Babe Ruth

Stated in an on-air interview during a Chicago Cubs baseball game that as a child he was in Wrigley Field with his father when Babe Ruth called a World Series home run. Can anyone find a transcript or back this up?

Well, I can't, but this is an interesting read: [1]. --ZekeMacNeil 17:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ashcroft v. ACLU

Ashcroft v. ACLU mentioned in this article does not relate to regulating virtual child pornography, but rather the measures set up to restrict access of minors to online pornography. http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-218.ZS.html

Yeah, you're right. It's Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition [2]. I'll go fix it now. --zenohockey 16:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Steven's health

I have read several recent mentions that Steven's health has taken "a turn for the worse" this year (these mentions are in the numerous Miers related articles of this week). He is 85 and we seem to know nothing about the state of his health. I don't trust the vague references above (may be wishful thinking by those who want him off the court), but we should have a health section for Stevens in this article, with information about his past cancer situation, and his current health. Does anyone know where we can find this information from a reliable source? NoSeptember 20:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Segal-Cover score

If the article is to discuss Stevens' Segal-Cover score, we should have an article describing what that score represents and how it is derived. BD2412 T 17:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I added an article explaining what they are. I have a busy week, but when the semester is over and I've finished grading I'll expand the Segal-Cover scores article and update all the post-war justices with their scores. -User: Vincent Vecera

Huh?

"A transformed lagged behavior measure places him as more liberal." I don't know what that means. Trojanpony 00:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

The Ann Coulter reference to poisoning him seems unnecessary. It seems more intended to demonstrate that conservative critics of Justice Stevens are all as batty as Coulter. I don't see how it contributes to the article in any meaningful way. I'm taking it out.

As much as I think Coulter is a jackass, I agree that her moronic wordslinking does not deserve mention. (Has no one considered that in the event of the assassination of a justice, the President would me morally and politically bound to replace him or her with someone of similar judicial ideology, so as to set a rule that would prevent politically-inspired assassination?)Vincent Vecera 18:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Not all Presidents are constrained by your imagined bindings. -- 71.102.136.107 23:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Stevens retirement speculation

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/1/210351.shtml?s=lh

I thought this was relevant, particularly this paragraph: "Stevens has not made any formal announcement regarding his retirement, nor is he known to be in poor health. But he is 85 years old, and rumor has it that he hopes to have his replacement named by a Republican president."

I've heard rumor (through the ex-clerk mill) that the opposite is true, that he is hostile to the thought of a Republican replacing him. He still plays tennis and is in extremely good health for an 85 year old man. I'd not be at all surprised to see him on the Court for another five years. Finally, newsmax is a notoriously unreliable (and ultra-biased) source. Vincent Vecera 18:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought I'd heard it somewhere else too but I can't recall what the source was.--Hbutterfly 21:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. served until he turned 90, and that was long before the advent of much modern medical knowledge. bd2412 T 00:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Stevens will probably stay as long as he can... he has shown that trait (right now, he is 86). In addition, Newsmax is extremely un-credible and biased and I do wonder whether Stevens would care whether his replacement was a Democrat or Republican, since he has also shown he does not care for and is largely not partisan and the current state of American political affairs being quite partisan. Lastly, there are always rumors about nearly everything under the sun! ~ clearthought 20:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Reports from former clerks don't strike me as particularly strong evidence that Stevens will retire before the 2006 election, just as unsubstantiated reports about his hiring clerks through October Term 2007 don't strike me as particularly strong evidence the other way. Can someone provide better evidence one way or the other? Otherwise, maybe we should delete these statements. ---Axios023 03:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"rumor has it"? Wikipedia is a not a vehicle for rumor mongering. -- 71.102.136.107 23:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

More recent photograph?

It appears to me that the current main photo is about 10 years old or so. Perhaps a more recent picture would be acceptable? http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_current/images_b/003.html Neal2028 18:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

Not enough references. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oldest ever?

Is he the oldest serving Justice ever? Dogru144 09:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

PS, he's served to an older age than Justices Brennan or Marshall. Dogru144 09:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
No. I believe that was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who retired from the Court at age 90. Stevens is not quite that old. Yet. --Pjb dinky 01:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Pjb_dinky

Re-considering 1st paragraph edit?

I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent edit of this article -- not that I'm sure that the data are necessarily "wrong." Rather, I'm persuaded that the strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is an unhelpful approach to this specific subject. I note that articles about other sitting Justices have been similarly "enhanced;" and I also believe those changes are no improvement.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, I would invite anyone to re-visit articles written about the following pairs of jurists.

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

At a minimum, I'm questioning this edit? It deserves to be reconsidered. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Jurist Deleted

I think that is pretty obvious given his title. I took the libral nature of deleting it. If you all feel it necessary to put it back, go right ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mross462 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Stevens and affirmative action

I made two slight edits to the discussion of Stevens's views on affirmative action. First, I don't know whether it is correct that Stevens was once the Court's "most" impassioned critic of affirmative action. Rehnquist and Stewart were pretty impassioned as well. I altered the discussion to state that he was "an" impassioned critic. Second, the discussion stated that Stevens compared the minority set aside in Fullilove to Nazi race laws, which is a little misleading. His reference to Nazi race laws appears in a footnote to his dissent in Fullilove, and it isn't a comparison in the sense of claiming that the set aside program was the same as Nazi race laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.88.183 (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

GPA

The source given doesn't mention that he had the highest GPA in the history of the law school. Foundmine (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does, on page 3: "Returning from the war in 1945, Stevens thought of becoming a high-school English teacher, like his mother, but instead was persuaded by his brother to enroll at Northwestern University Law School on the G.I. Bill. Two years later, he graduated first in his class, with the highest grade-point average in the history of the school." Crazyale (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Drug Legalization?

Why was Justice Stevens added to the "Americans Favoring Drug Legalization" Category? I'm going to delete this if whoever added this cannot provide a source.Crazyale (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In one fairly recent opinion that was about marijuana he did express the opinion that the prohibition of marijuana was analogous to the prohibition of alcohol in his youth, and that it too should be repealed. I don't remember the name but should be easy to look up. I don't think he has said anything that would indicate a wish to legalize all drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.231.115 (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The case was Morse v Frederick 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.231.115 (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

J. P. Stevens High School

The following was edited out. It was unsourced, and one of the editors deemed it trival.

(There is a high school in Edison, New Jersey also named J.P. Stevens, but it is named for John P. Stevens of textile mill fame.)

I agree with that decision. Any contrary opinion? And a reason? 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Stan

Administration of oath of office as Vice President to Joe Biden

The assertion that Stevens administered the oath of office to Vice President Joe Biden has no citation, and is controversial in that it suggests (especially if no citation is given) that Biden repeated the oath word-for-word correctly (which wasn't the case). Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately according to the notes at the top of this page, but I added a citation needed prompt instead, as it isn't controversial that the swearing-in ceremony occurred. I don't know of a transcript for the event or published report that confirms the entire oath was repeated accurately. 77.103.171.131 (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added a citation that Stevens gave the oath to Biden. There is no controversy here except in 77.103.171.131's imagination. See Talk:Joe Biden#Swearing in of Joe Biden for a centralized discussion of this trivial matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's hardly sufficient. It may seem trivial to you, but Obama retook his oath anyway, and that is noted on Wikipedia. The article cited doesn't state what wording Biden used, and its flowery language and lack of any specific detail give the impression it was written in advance of the event. 77.103.171.131 (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if this mattered, it wouldn't matter for this article, because Stevens read the oath correctly (unlike Roberts, who messed up on the presidential oath). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The Constitution sets forth no oath for the Vice President. Thus, Stevens and Biden could have recited a medley of showtunes and called it the oath and Biden would be in just as good a standing. bd2412 T 04:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/John Paul Stevens was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Days remaining until... (to be added)

I intend to add the following to section 1.3, 1970 to present day. Anybody care to comment and/or re-format it in an approved manner?

In light of Justice Stevens having only hired one law clerk, speculation as to when he may retire is increasing. The following may contribute to that conversation...
Justice John Paul Stevens' time in office will surpass that of...
...Hugo Black in −5,426 days
...John Marshall in −5,303 days
...Stephen Johnson Field in −5,259 days
...William O. Douglas in −4,515 days

In term of his age, Justice John Paul Stevens (born April 20, 1920 - present) [38174 days old] will pass by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (b.March 8, 1841 – d.March 6, 1935) [34330 days old at death or 33181 days old at retirement] in age in under one year, or around −4,993 days.

LP-mn (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is speculation, synthesis, and original research. You can cite reliable sources that speculate that Stevens's recent limited hiring suggests plans to require, but what you are proposing is simply not acceptable content. Wikipedia is not supposed to create OR that "may contribute to" a conversation. Magidin (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it here.LP-mn (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Political Party?

Does anyone know if he is registered with a political party?Racingstripes (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Several recent articles on his retirement have labelled him a Republican. I've added this to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.172.102 (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

He was a Republican (I've read "life-long" but can't find a source now) when appointed. In the interview with Jeffrey Rosen in 2007, he pointedly refused to state whether he still considers himself a Republican. I've added a sentence indicating his refusal to comment. Your original phrasing was perhaps not very appropriate, though I find some of the comments on the reverts likewise not very appropriate. Magidin (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

his health benefits terminated?

Anybody have any idea why his "health benefits" would have been terminated? Is he wealthy or does his wife have money, or is it an interesting story about separation of powers? :) It's in this story [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.171.106 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not positive, but I'm guessing it's just a joke...Bush was interested because they're terminating Stevens' health benefits. Note that it's a humor site. Brettalan (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Death penalty

I think it would be prudent to state clearly that, as a result of his opinion in the Kentucky case, Justice Stevens is in fact the fourth Justice in history (and the only one currently on the bench) to voice his opposition to the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment (and thus unconstitutional) under the Eight Amendment. Here is what MSNBC wrote about it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24163745/ Shoplifter (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin Addition

Recently, an anonymous user added the following sentence: "He is the fifth cousin, twice removed, of Sarah Palin." The source for this assertion is here. Even assuming it's true, I don't see why it's notable. I have no idea what the odds of are someone being related to many different people at that level of remoteness. Putting that aside, can anyone understand how the source supports the assertion? I can't.

If no one chimes in, I intend to remove the assertion and the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is not notable; I say remove it. Magidin (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, Magidin. Another editor removed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed it for several reasons. As noted above, the notability of such a claim is questionable. Also, whether the link in question even supports the claim is questionable. I did do a little searching, and from the link shown, I went to this link which does appear to make an assertion of relationship to a "Living Heath", daughter of "Living Heath" and "Living Sheeran", the younger Heath quite likely being Sarah Palin. Still not what we'd consider a reliable source and also...not so notable. People are related to all sorts of other people, especially the further back you go (as also noted above).  Frank  |  talk  18:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought of drilling down in search of an "answer" but decided it was too much work for too little payback. You're a braver man than I.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Or less gainfully occupied :-)  Frank  |  talk  02:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Why Preceded and succeeded by ?

I have a question which may have been answered elsewhere, but it 'pops up here', so I will ask it here.

Associate Justices on the SC serve as a unit, rather than in a particular 'office', so I do not think who Stevens replace and who replaced him should be included in these articles about Supreme Court Associate Justices.

Here is my point - If both senators of a state were to resign, the gov would need to appoint two replacements, and he would need to specifiy which replacement was replacing who - as it would affect which 'class' the new senators would be in. If the Chief Justice and an associate were to resign at the same time, the president would need to specifiy which one he was nominating for the Chief Justice.

However, if two associate justices were to resign at the same time, the president would not need (nor even could he I think) specify which one was replaceing who.

Therefore, I would like to see this info removed from all the 'boxes' about associate justices. Has this been discussed elsewhere? If so, I will move this comment there. Rodchen (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it puts things into context, so I find it (mildly) useful. Ultimately, though, it's something that should be decided on a broader basis, not in the talk page for one article. Perhaps you should ask on the project page for the US courts project? Brettalan (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
People uninterested in the Supreme Court may not be aware of it, but there are definite "seats" on the Supreme Court. See List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by seat. This is relevant information to justices and should not be deleted.   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually read that page, and put comments on its discussion page because when I looked that the web site for the US Supreme Court, I see no reference to 'seats'. And so while there is a wikepedia page dealing with the 'seats', I have the question 'are there 'seats'?' I find no evidence of it. Rodchen (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Two issues: There undoubtedly have been "seats" reserved for justices representing states or ethnicities, most famously the "Jewish seat". However those aren't necessarily occupied in a pure succession. OTOH, in the modern era justices are nominated to replace other justices. In this case, Stevens was nominated to fill the seat vacated by the resignation of William O. Douglas. In any case, I suggest that this discusion would be more appropriate at talk:List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by seat or talk:Supreme Court of the United States, since the proposal involves the biographies of all justices, past and present.   Will Beback  talk  09:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
For evidence that people are nominated for particular seats, see John Roberts, who was nominated to fill the seat of retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and who was then re-nominated to fill the seat of William Rehnquist, who died before the nomination could be considered. There's nothing that would say he couldn't have been first elevated to the court and then nominated to fill the position of Chief Justice, but it was specifically requested he be considered for that position directly.  Frank  |  talk  12:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I believe that people are nominated to fill specific seats. This occurred, for example, when Black and Marshall Harlan both retired in quick succession; Powell was nominated to fill the vacancy left by Black, Rehnquist to the vacancy left by Harlan. Magidin (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
For further evidence, in his memorandum discussing the motion of recusal in Cheney v. United States District Court, Scalia refers to the "seat [he] was appointed to". See page 16 here. Magidin (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Change to lead

The following sentence was in the lead: "Justice Stevens served with three Chief Justices (Warren E. Burger, William Rehnquist, and John G. Roberts) and during all or part of seven presidencies (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama)."

Rodchen removed the second part about the seven presidents with the following explanation in the edit summary: "Including which presidents were presidents when he was on the court seems silly and meaningless". I reverted with "shows his longevity". Rod reverted saying "'the third-longest serving justice in the Court's history' comment adequately shows his longevity".

I don't feel strongly about this, but the part about the presidents is accurate and a nice background touch for the lead. Also, the shortened sentence looks, uh, lonely.

I propose reinserting the material. I also think the sentence should be moved to after the "third-longest" sentence, and then the following sentence starting a new paragraph. The lead would look like this (w/o wikilinks, refs):

John Paul Stevens (born April 20, 1920) served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from December 19, 1975 until his retirement on June 29, 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest member of the Court and the third-longest serving justice in the Court's history. Justice Stevens served with three Chief Justices (Warren E. Burger, William Rehnquist, and John G. Roberts) and during all or part of seven presidencies (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama).

Stevens was nominated by President Gerald Ford to replace the Court's longest serving justice, William O. Douglas. Stevens is widely considered to have been on the liberal side of the Court. Ford praised Stevens in 2005: "He is serving his nation well, with dignity, intellect and without partisan political concerns." Asked in an interview in September 2007 if he still considers himself a Republican, Stevens declined to comment.

On May 10, 2010, President Barack Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to succeed Stevens.

If the consensus is to keep the presidencies phrase out, I'd still move the short sentence to the new location.

As an aside, I'd remove the Kagan sentence.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree the inclusion of the seven-presidency tenure adds to the article, primarily by illustrating the length of time in a way that is easy to relate to. But I also agree that listing all seven presidents is a bit meaningless. Could we compromise by substituting "and during all or part of seven presidencies, from Gerald Ford to Barack Obama" for the last part of the sentence in your proposal above? Fat&Happy (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Fat&Happy's suggestion. In addition, I'm somewhat wary of juxtaposing "[was] on the liberal side of the Court" with Ford's praise; Stevens was nominated as a centrist (and was a centrist in the latter part of the Burger Court), and even recently described himself as a moderate/conservative in a Court that has moved steadily to the right. This all suggests that his association with the "liberal wing" is a matter of somewhat delicate discussion, and that makes the juxtaposition more troubling. Ford's praise certainly belongs in the article, but I'm not sure about putting in the lead. This being the lead, it's not an appropriate place to discuss the details of the ideological shift, but I wonder if some indication that his role as the leader of the liberal wing came later in his tenure, mainly after Blackmun's retirement, can be made? Perhaps "By the time of retirement, Stevens was widely considered to be on the liberal side of the Court" and drop Ford's praise. And about the Republican sentence, that also strikes me as somewhat out-of-place; or perhaps adding, from that same interview, his self-description as a judicial conservative? Magidin (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm okay with Fat&Happy's suggestion. I disagree partly with Magidin - I don't see any problem with the liberal designation, although Stevens was a bit of a maverick. The Republican sentence I could do without. A decline to comment hardly seems noteworthy, particularly for the lead.
What about the Kagan sentence?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, what I find most problematic about the liberal designation is its juxtaposition with Ford's comments; if Ford's comments are taken out from the lead, I'd be okay with the lead. I would move Ford's comments to the Judicial career, 1970-2010 section (making them explicit rather than just mentioning the letter at the end of the third paragraph of that section). I would also add his (Stevens's) self-identification as a judicial moderate/conservative, and his refusal to comment about whether he is still a republican, to that section (keeping the footnote that quotes him verbatim; I've read that as Stevens making the point that he should not get into partisan issues as a Justice, rather than a comment about Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, etc). As for the Kagan sentence, given that she has been confirmed, perhaps updating it with the fact that she was confirmed and joined the Court would be in order; otherwise, I think it's okay to list his successor: the same is done for both Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter, at least; didn't check any others. The phrasing in the O'Connor page ("...and he joined the Court on...") is what I would suggest here. Magidin (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll let others comment on your Ford issue. If we leave Kagan in (not a big deal for me), I would go with the O'Connor style (saying when her successor was nominated and when he joined the Court) rather than the Souter style (similar to the current Stevens style).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I would not include the phrase 'At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest member of the Court'. That does not seem noteworthy. I suspect most retirees are the oldest of those currently serving (though on the Supreme Court that is not always the case). If however, he was the oldest person ever to sit on the court, that is very much worth noting, but then it needs to be phrased differently.

Also, the phrase 'the third-longest serving justice in the Court's history' should be separated from the 'at the time of his retirement' as they are not linked.

Finally, I just did a quick query, and wonder if Stevens served as Senior Associate Justice longer than anybody. If so, that also seems noteworthy. I am not sure if it is true, but would be worth checking out. Rodchen (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Douglas, who also served while seven different people were presidents, does not have that fact referenced. Rodchen (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't the oldest person to ever serve: that distinction currently goes to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., (see the section on Tenure and Age); Stevens was the second oldest person still a sitting justice. He is also not the longest serving Senior Associate, and there it's not even close. Stevens served as Senior Associate from the retirement of Harry Blackmun in 1994, through his own retirement in 2010. The first person I checked as a possible longer-serving Senior Associate was Hugo Black, who became Senior Associate upon the retirement of Owen Roberts in 1945, and remained so until he retired a couple of weeks short of his death in 1971. Bushrod Washington also served longer than Stevens as Senior Associate: 1811 through 1829. The Oxford Guide had a small note saying he might have held the record for solo opinions during his first year, but that seems much harder to check. Magidin (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Commerce clause and states' rights section

I don't know how to create a new 'topic' on this page as I am just a casual user of Wikipedia, but the "Commerce clause and states' rights" projects an unrealistic view of Justice Stevens re: cannabis. While the section already included shows he sides with Federal law over states' laws on medical (cannabis) MPP released a number of full-page PDFs, one of which was of Justice Stevens along with a (long) quote of his effectively comparing cannabis prohibition to alcohol prohibition. Dave 17:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesilvan (talk • contribs)

Do you mean the Marijuana Policy Project? Do you have a cite to the document you mention? I'm not sure that it would matter, though, because the section is about his jurisprudence, not about his personal views. (If you read the instructions at the top of the page, it tells you how to start a new topic, or you can click on New section tab at the upper right.)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Justice Stevens opposition response to Citizens United decision ...

Excerpt ...

in his dissenting opinion, “Five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.”[1]

"His dissent was ninety pages, the longest of his career."

“The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare,” Stevens wrote. “Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.”

  1. ^ http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/21/120521fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=10
  2. ^ Money Unlimited; How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision (May 21, 2012) New Yorker

99.181.128.4 (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Importance? Relevance? It's not the most scathing dissent, even in recent times. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
"Scathing" wouldn't be a criterion. 07:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.142.87 (talk)
Why else would it be encyclopedic? Many justices have been accused by other justices of "judicial activism". Why should this one be notable? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
It is very rare for retired justices to criticise their colleagues so directly, or to reveal some of the "maneuvering" behind the scenes. I consider this as rather important; but that said, I would think, however, that we should get some reliable secondary source commenting on the rarity, rather than Wikipedia doing so directly. I think that if we can find commentary from reliable sources saying how rare this is, or how interesting this is, then it should go in. That said, I think that this should go in the criticism section of the Citizens United page, that currently only has mention of O'Connor's "oblique" criticisms. Magidin (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Antitrust Law

The article describes Justice Stevens as an authority on Antitrust law, and says he worked on a lot of antitrust cases as an attorney, but it doesn't say which side he usually took. Did he defend the monopolies or work to dismantle them? Does anyone know? The article should say something about this. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

News articles on confirmation

http://www.nytimes.com/1975/11/29/national/29STEV.html?_r=0

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

Stevens wins approval, Wilmington Morning Star [North Carolina], United Press International (Washington), Friday, Dec. 12, 1975, page 17.

"Supreme Court nominee Judge John Paul Stevens won unanimous approval Thursday from the Senate Judiciary Committee. His confirmation by the full Senate is expected Monday. . . "

" . . . The 15-member committee voted 13 to 0 to recommend confirmation. Two absentees, Sens. Hiram Fong, R-Hawaii, and John Tunney, D-Calif., had previously indicated their support for the 55-year-old former antitrust attorney who is now a member of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Sen. Birch Bayh, D-Ind., a candidate for his party's presidential nomination, voted for Stevens but indicated he disagreed strongly with his previous opinions on women's rights issues. . . "

" . . . Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., reported to the committee that Stevens' tax returns for the past 10 years and a breakdown of his finances had been found to be satisfactory by former Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Mortimer Caplan who examined the papers for the committee."

////////////////////////////////////////////////

Stevens Confirmed To Court, Daily Union Democrat (Sonora, California), Washington (UPI), Weds. Dec. 17, 1975, page 2.

"The Senate voted today to confirm John Paul Stevens . . . "

“ . . . Stevens, 55, whose judicial philosophy has been described as moderately conservative, won easy Senate approval after brief debate. . . ”

////////////////////////////////////////////

Senate confirms Stevens, Bangor Daily News (Bangor, Maine), Washington (UPI), Thurs. Dec. 18, 1975, page 1 (right at fold or slightly below fold).

“John Paul Stevens was unanimously confirmed by the Senate Wednesday to become a justice of the Supreme Court, bringing the high tribunal up to its full strength. Stevens won Senate approval 98 to 0 . . . ”

“ . . . He will be sworn in Friday in a public ceremony at the Supreme Court. . . ”

///////////////////////////////////

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=wzYwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zvgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5413,2302589&dq=stevens+judiciary-committee&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8fBSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=84IDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7139,4747473&dq=stevens+senate-judiciary-committee&hl=en


I think news articles are an excellent way to verify some of the basic facts. And I like the whole approach of using a variety of good sources. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Best quote of Stevens in Citizens

I see at least someone besides myself bothered to read his dissent in Citizens United. I had pulled out this quote and decided it should be added to his page..and saw someone pulled a different one. Here is the one I pulled.

in a functioning democracy the public must have faith that its representatives owe their positions to the people, not to the corporations with the deepest pockets

I feel this one is far more in line with the subject of Citizens United. I also don't yet see comments on his page regarding this ruling. I would appreciate it if someone helping to make sure this man's words live in history consider changing this page. Thanks Pbmaise (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, it's not our job to do something as direct as seeing the man's words live in history. But since it is our goal to have a variety of sources and cover the topic, in this case a biography, with good breadth of coverage, in practice it might work out to about one and the same. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. the oldest serving justice?

This is what our wiki article on Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. says: "Holmes retired from the Court at the age of 90 years, 309 days, making him the oldest Justice in the Supreme Court's history."

And our article here says (lead paragraph): "he [Stevens] was the oldest member of the Court." I think we need to first check the facts and then work on good, clear writing. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you miss the beginning of the sentence? It says "at the time of his retirement". Seems clear that that means, well, at the time, not in history. Brettalan (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Stevens was the oldest member of the Court in which he was serving; that is clear from the syntax of the sentence. This is different from the claim that he was the oldest serving Justice in Supreme Court history (which he was not, as you note; that was Holmes). I think the writing is clear here; I do not see the interpretation you are trying to give to "oldest member" (as opposed to "oldest Justice...in history"). What alternate wording do you propose to avoid that (possibly strained) reading? Magidin (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, all I can say that when I read it the first time, I read that we were claiming that Stevens was the oldest justice in the Court's History. The phrase "At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest member of the Court." Yes, a guy who's 90 years old, compared to eight other persons, he is likely to be the oldest member of that group. I'm not sure this is noteworthy enough to include in the lead. Maybe if Stevens was the second oldest serving justice in history . . . I don't know that. I'd like to do some research. I plan to work on some phrasing. Please feel free to jump in and help, with both the research and the writing.
We might also want to look at the sentence: "Stevens is widely considered to have been on the liberal side of the Court." I've heard John Paul Stevens described as "the wild card" on the Court, with his views not easily classified along the one-dimensional liberal-conservative spectrum. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

John Paul Stevens Second-Oldest Justice Ever, ABA Journal, Debra Cassens Weiss, Nov 19, 2007.
"Last Friday, Justice John Paul Stevens because the second-oldest justice ever to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.
"As of Nov. 16, Stevens was 87 years and 210 days old, DC Dicta reports. He will have to stay on the U.S. Supreme Court for almost three more years to break the record of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who stayed on the court until the age of 90. . . "

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens 'will surely' retire with Barack Obama in office, The Telegraph (UK), 4 Apr 2010.
" . . . Justice Stevens is the second-oldest justice in the court's history, after Oliver Wendell Holmes. He is the seventh-longest-serving justice, with more than 34 years on the court. . . "

Okay, here's two good sources. I do what to look up the DC Dicta source the ABA Journal mentions. And now, have done this. But, DC Dicta mentions Washington Post and another source. Plus, ABA Journal is a more familiar source. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked the edit in the opening sentence to the following: "At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest Justice then serving, one of oldest serving justices in the history of the Court, and the third longest-serving Justice in history." This keeps the original point (he was the oldest serving at the time), the clarification, and the new info. Magidin (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting another source. And I think we can now say, with good support, that Justice Stevens was the second-oldest serving justice in history. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

From Justice Stevens, No Exit Signs, Washington Post, Robert Barnes, November 18, 2008.
" . . . Stevens is the second-oldest justice in the court's history, behind Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired at 90. . . "

" . . . and he is the leader of the left-leaning justices not just by virtue of his experience but also because of his ability to occasionally sway Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to join the liberals. . . "

Protestantism

Stevens is, as of 2014, the last Protestant to have served as a member of SCOTUS. This is significant in that for the vast majority of the court's existence, it was entirely or largely composed of Protestants, but now has none. 2600:1004:B11C:C72C:2162:1907:851E:3DF (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Honorific prefix "the honorable"

Following a series of back-and-forth edits to infoboxes for SCOTUS justices, I added the honorific prefix "the honorable" to the infobox for this article. Earlier today, Torritorri reverted by inclusion of the honorific prefix with this edit. According to relevant sources, sitting SCOTUS Justices do not use the title "the Honorable," while retired Justices do use the title "the Honorable" (see this guide to etiquette and this guide to United States protocol). Is it okay with everyone if I add the honorific prefix back to the infobox? Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't heard any objections, so I'm going to add the honorific prefix back to the infobox. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says: "In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name, but may be discussed in the article" [except for clergy or royalty, or when the title is commonly included with the name, as with Mother Teresa for example]. According to this criterion, the honorific should be excluded for this retired justice, as it adds nothing of importance to the article and is not in common use—he is almost exclusively referred to as "Justice Stevens". While this is also true for example with Barack Obama, almost always referred to as "President Obama", and whose article does include the prefix "the honorable", the President is involved in international diplomacy, and thus his diplomatic title is germaine to his duties, which is not true of a retired associate justice. Therefore I support removal of the title from the infobox. SilverLocust (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

SilverLocust, I have to disagree with your assessment that the honorific prefix "is not in common use." In the legal community, he is often referred to as "The Honorable Justice Stevens." See, for example, this symposium held by the U.C. Davis Law Review honoring "The Honorable John Paul Stevens," this notice about Northwestern Law School's Dean's Legacy Award presented to "Honorable John Paul Stevens," and this webpage for UCLA Law's 2014 commencement ceremony, which describes him as "The Honorable John Paul Stevens." This biography from Public Citizen uses "The Honorable," as well as this piece from the University of Chicago and this interview with the Alliance for Justice. I could cite other examples, but hopefully this will give you a sense of how this term has widespread acceptance among legal circles. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

In formal, social, academic, and related settings, the term "Honorable" is used equally for sitting and retired justices. (Whether this is worth making so prominent in the infobox is a separate question.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is incomplete

As of Mar 16,2016 two other associate justices are alive and both have "senior" status. This article doesn't clarify what AJ Stevens's current relationship with the federal courts is (I assume there is none). It also says virtually nothing on what he's done since his 2010 retirement. Or where he lives (both other retired justices have that info included in their articles).Abitslow (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The term "senior status" is not generally used for Supreme Court Justices, as opposed to justices of lower courts. The main actual difference in the three retired justices' status is that Justices O'Connor and Souter have sat from time to time "by designation" as visiting judges on the Courts of Appeals. (Souter sat again with the First Circuit earlier this month, see here. Justice Stevens, who was much older at his retirement than O'Connor or Souter, has not sat as a lower-court judge, but he has written two books and several articles, and he has also given several public speeches, the transcripts of some of which are here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

98-0 confirmation vote?

Who were the two Senators that didn't vote? DanBishop (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

According to this document from the Senate's page, it was democrats James Allen of Alabama, absent due to illness, and Birch Bayh from Indiana, who was "necessarily absent". Magidin (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on John Paul Stevens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Paul Stevens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Paul_Stevens/Archive_1&oldid=1136851198"