Talk:John Paul Stevens

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)

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)

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.”

"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.”

• John Roberts has been criticized of judicial activism regarding the process surrounding the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in a May 2012 article in The 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)~