DOCSLIB.ORG

The Stevens Myth Why Has Everyone Fallen for John Paul Stevens's Self-Serving Narrative? JUSTIN DRIVER

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Stevens Myth Why Has Everyone Fallen for John Paul Stevens's Self-Serving Narrative? JUSTIN DRIVER The Stevens Myth Why has everyone fallen for John Paul Stevens's self-serving narrative? JUSTIN DRIVER EGAL C IRCLES HAVE BEEN ABUZZ for the last N TH E QU EST ION OF government's ability to take eight months with the news that Justice John Paul account of race, Stevens has attempted to maintain a Stevens had hired only one law clerk to begin work­ O veneer of consistency with some particularly intricate ing this summer. This move, Supreme Court watch­ tap danCing. In a 1980 case validating a federal program de­ ers o bserved, strongly suggested that Stevens's signed to steer business to minority-owned companies, Ste­ Lthirty-fifth term at the Court would be his last. As journalists vens dissented and, in a notorious footnote, compared the and scholars begin contemplating his place in history, Stevens program to laws from Nazi Germany. Stevens has sought to himself ha s not-so-subtly attempted to burnish his judicial explain his subsequent embrace of race-conscious measures legacy. [n a series of interviews over the last few years, Ste­ in educational settings by emphasizing the different contexts. vens has repeatedly attempted to portray his views as fun­ Unlike affirmative action in business (where the group of damentally unaltered since he joined the Court. This claim beneficiaries is constrained), Stevens told Rosen that, in the is somewhat counterintuitive, as he was elevated by Repub­ educational world, "the whole student body profits from hav­ lican President Gerald Ford but has become the leader of ing diversity in the classes. So I really don't think I've changed the Court's liberal bloc. "[ don't think that my votes repre­ my views about this." sent a change in my own thinking;' Stevens told TNR legal­ During the course of his career, however, Stevens has voted affairs editor Jeffrey Rosen for a 2007 profile in The New York both to strike down affirmative action in higher education Times Maga zine. ''I'm just disagreeing with changes that the and to uphold affirmative action in business. In 1978, Stevens others are making." When Stevens encounters his old opin­ wrote an opinion seeking to invalidate a medical school's ef­ ions these days, he professes keen admiration for what he forts to achieve a racially diverse student body. Although he sees. "We're getting to a point that our cases are revisiting admittedly would have decided the ca se on statutory (rather issues that I wrote on 10, 20, 30 years ago;' he conn.ded to than constitutiona l) grounds, Stevens appealed to the very journalist Joan Biskupic last year. "I really have felt pretty same colorblind principle that motivates affirmative action good about re-reading the opinions I wrote many years ago. opponents today. "The University of California through its [ hav e to confess that:' special admissions policy excluded Allan Bakke from partici­ Commentators have embraced Stevens's preferred self­ pation in its program of medical education because of his race;' image, largely portraying him as an island of stasis amid a Stevens began in his oral statement from the bench. In 1995, sea of dynamism. Adam Liptak dutifully relayed the justice's moreover, the Court adopted Stevens's earlier skepticism of assessment in the Times earlier this month: "His views have programs designed to aid minority-owned companies (albeit generally remained stable, [Stevens] said, while the court has not his reasoning that such programs smacked of the Third drifted to the right over time:' But, while the Court, the GOP, Reich). By then, Stevens had changed positions, and he wrote a and the nation as a whole all became more conservative dur­ powerful dissent urging the Court to recognize the distinction ing Stevens's tenure, these trends do not negate the fact that between inclusive and exclusive uses of race. It may well be Stevens has also tacked hard to the left. Indeed, examining that treating all racial classifications identically "doesn't make his early years on the Court reveals rulings that would be any sense;' as Stevens told Rosen in the wake of the Court's unfathomable coming from Stevens today. While his early invalidation of two voluntary school-integration programs. If record is habitually described as "quirky;' it is underappreci­ that is so, however, Stevens passionately advocated a senseless ated that this quirkiness often took Stevens in conservative position for many years. directions- particularly in cases involving society's most con­ Although Jeffrey Toobin's recent New Yorker profile granted tentious legal disputes. Rather than ap plauding Stevens for a th at Stevens has "evolved" on race and capital punishment, it nonexistent steadfastness and misremembering the justice nonetheless furthered an erroneous conception of consistency that he once was, the legal left should instead be content to in other high-profile areas . The piece quotes former federal celebrate the admirable justice that he has become. judge Abner Mikva, an old friend from Chicago, describing Puncturing the myth of Stevens's judicial consistency Stevens as fi scally conservative, but noting that "he was al­ could also serve to mute some of the left's more overwrought ways a great progress ive on civil rights and social rights:' In mourning for the demise of country-club Republicanism. Ste­ this vein, Toobin asserts: "Stevens has always supported abor­ vens- with his wealthy background, ongoing devotion to golf tion rights and an expansive notion of freedom of speech:' The and tennis, and membership at four country clubs around the truth, though, is a good deal more complicated. nation- is an archetype of the GOP establishment from a by­ In an abortion case decided in 1976, Stevens split his ju­ gone era. To the extent that some of Stevens's initial opinions dicial ticket on two consent requirements contained in a on the Court can be viewed as articulating the legal views of Missouri statute. Although he voted with the liberal maj or­ the Skip and Muffy set, it becomes clear that searching social ity to invalidate a spousal consent provision, Stevens also reform seldom originated on the back nine. Stevens, like many sided with the conservatives in dissent, believing that Mis­ of his fellow Republican-nominated justices, took some time souri could require a pregnant young woman under the age before moving decidedly to the left. of 18 to obtain permission from her parents before receiving THE NEW REPUBLIC APRIL 29, 2010 19 I an abortion. One year later-over the ther's (apparently wrongful) conviction Stevens in 1975, activists on the right are dissent of Justices Harry Bl ackmun, for embezzlement influenced his judicial now fervently dedicated to ensuring that William Brennan, and Thurgood Mar­ thinking. This conviction taught Stevens Republicans capitalize upon each Court shall-Stevens joined the majority in "that the criminal justice system can mis­ nomination. Indeed, as recounted in jan holding that states do not act imper­ fire sometimes:' Examining Stevens's first Crawford Greenburg's Supreme Conflict, missibly when they deny state Medicaid full year on the Court nevertheless re­ it would be difficult to exaggerate how funds for abortions that have not been veals a justice who often appears unsym­ determined George WI. Bush was to avoid deemed "medically necessarY:' pathetic to criminal defendants' rights. To repeating his father's ill-conceived selec­ Stevens's most significant early opin­ select only one of the many available ex­ tion ofSouter. So wary ofleftward judicial ions as a justice involved the First amples, Stevens wrote a dissent in Doyle drift are conservatives that Bush-a man Amendment. Over the last two decades, v. Ohio contending that it should be con­ not usually known for either his grasp he has been a generally reliable defender stitutional for a prosecutor to cross-ex­ of jurisprudential nuance or his lack of offree speech. Yet this was not always so. amine a defendant regarding his failure self-assurance-expressed some uncer­ In a 1976 case decided by a 5-4 margin, to offer an exculpatory story immedi­ tainty after nominating john Roberts. Stevens wrote a plurality opinion that ap­ ately after being arrested and receiving "I checked this man out," Bush said to C. proved governmental zoning regulations Miranda warnings. It is difficult to un­ Boyden Gray. "I just hope he's the same regarding where adult films could be derstand how such a view would not have twenty years from now as he is todaY:' shown, even if those films had not been effectively eviscerated the right to remain Almost five years into Roberts's ten­ deemed legally obscene. The plurality silent. Today, in stark contrast, Stevens ure as chief justice, he and Samuel Alito opinion rejected the then-prevailing cat­ views Miranda as sacrosanct, leading him have betrayed few signs of unleashing egorical approach to speech and paved in February to be one ofonly two dissent­ their inner liberals. After several decades the way for increased content-based reg­ ers who would have held unconstitutional of misfires, Republicans appear to have ulation. "[Flew of us would march our a Florida police department's minor devi­ learned their painful lesson. Experience sons and daughters off to war to preserve ation from the standard warnings. suggests that the line separating judicial the citizen's right to see 'Specified Sexual turncoats from judicial loyalists-for the Activities' exhibited in the theaters ofour TEVENS'S MARJ(ED ideological shift GOP, at least-runs along the banks of choice;' Stevens wrote. It is a cute line, merits scrutiny not least because he the Potomac. Over the last four decades, but it also articulates a test that, taken Streads upon a well-worn path.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Roles of Sonia Sotomayor in Criminal Justice Cases * Christopher E
    THE ROLES OF SONIA SOTOMAYOR IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE CASES * CHRISTOPHER E. SMITH AND KSENIA PETLAKH I. INTRODUCTION The unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 20161 reminded Americans about the uncertain consequences of changes in the composition of the Supreme Court of the United States.2 It also serves as a reminder that this is an appropriate moment to assess aspects of the last major period of change for the Supreme Court when President Obama appointed, in quick succession, Justices Sonia Sotomayor in 20093 and Elena Kagan in 2010.4 Although it can be difficult to assess new justices’ decision-making trends soon after their arrival at the high court,5 they may begin to define themselves and their impact after only a few years.6 Copyright © 2017, Christopher Smith and Ksenia Petlakh. * Christopher E. Smith is a Professor of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University. A.B., Harvard University, 1980; M.Sc., University of Bristol (U.K.); J.D., University of Tennessee, 1984; Ph.D., University of Connecticut, 1988. Ksenia Petlakh is a Doctoral student in Criminal Justice, Michigan State University. B.A., University of Michigan- Dearborn, 2012. 1 Adam Liptak, Antonin Scalia, Justice on the Supreme Court, Dies at 79, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 13, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/antonin-scalia-death.html [https:// perma.cc/77BQ-TFEQ]. 2 Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Appointment Could Reshape American Life, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 18, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/us/politics/scalias-death-offers-best- chance-in-a-generation-to-reshape-supreme-court.html [http://perma.cc/F9QB-4UC5]; see also Edward Felsenthal, How the Court Can Reset After Scalia, TIME (Feb.
    [Show full text]
  • Ross E. Davies, Professor, George Mason University School of Law 10
    A CRANK ON THE COURT: THE PASSION OF JUSTICE WILLIAM R. DAY Ross E. Davies, Professor, George Mason University School of Law The Baseball Research Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, Fall 2009, pp. 94-107 (BRJ is a publication of SABR, the Society for American Baseball Research) George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Series 10-10 This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network at http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=1555017 **SABR_BRJ-38.2_final-v2:Layout 1 12/15/09 2:00 PM Page 94 BASEBALL AND LAW A Crank on the Court The Passion of Justice William R. Day Ross E. Davies here is an understandable tendency to date the Not surprisingly, there were plenty of other baseball Supreme Court’s involvement with baseball fans on the Court during, and even before, the period Tfrom 1922, when the Court decided Federal covered by McKenna’s (1898–1925), Day’s (1903–22), Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Pro- and Taft’s (1921–30) service. 13 Chief Justice Edward D. fessional Base Ball Clubs —the original baseball White (1894–1921) 14 and Justices John Marshall Har - antitrust-exemption case. 1 And there is a correspon - lan (1877–1911), 15 Horace H. Lurton (1910–14), 16 and ding tendency to dwell on William Howard Taft—he Mahlon Pitney (1912–22), 17 for example. And no doubt was chief justice when Federal Baseball was decided 2— a thorough search would turn up many more. 18 There is, when discussing early baseball fandom on the Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Tales from the Blackmun Papers: a Fuller Appreciation of Harry Blackmun's Judicial Legacy
    Missouri Law Review Volume 70 Issue 4 Fall 2005 Article 7 Fall 2005 Tales from the Blackmun Papers: A Fuller Appreciation of Harry Blackmun's Judicial Legacy Joseph F. Kobylka Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Joseph F. Kobylka, Tales from the Blackmun Papers: A Fuller Appreciation of Harry Blackmun's Judicial Legacy, 70 MO. L. REV. (2005) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol70/iss4/7 This Conference is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kobylka: Kobylka: Tales from the Blackmun Papers: Tales from the Blackmun Papers: A Fuller Appreciation of Harry Blackmun's Judicial Legacy Joseph F. Kobylka' This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to termi- enough 2 nate her pregnancy. - Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe v. Wade I believe we must analyze respondent Hardwick's claim in the light of the values that underlie the constitutional right to privacy. If that right means anything, it means that, before Georgia can prosecute its citizens for making choices about the most intimate aspects of their lives, it must do more than assert that the choice they have made3 is an "'abominable crime not fit to be named among Christians.' - Justice Harry A.
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion Assignment on the Rehnquist Court
    Opinion assignment on the Rehnquist Court Rehnquist’s opinion assignments reflected his ability to balance both the Court’s organizational needs and, occasionally, strategic policy considerations. by FORREST MALTZMAN and PAUL J. WAHLBECK ARTVILLE hen William H. Rehnquist replaced Warren E. completed their work efficiently.4 Rehnquist’s preference Burger as chief justice in 1986, administration for allowing the Court’s administrative needs to guide his Wof the Supreme Court changed markedly. In his opinion assignments was especially pronounced as the 17 years on the job, Chief Justice Burger was reputed to end of the term approached. act strategically to advance his policy objectives. Critics Our account certainly comports with Rehnquist’s own complained that he cast “phony votes” and manipulated description of the factors he weighed in making assign- the assignment of opinions to his brethren.1 For exam- ments: “I tried to be as evenhanded as possible as far as ple, Justice William O. Douglas charged the chief with numbers of cases assigned to each justice, but as the term attempting to “bend the Court to his will by manipulating goes on I take into consid- NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY assignments” when Chief Justice Burger assigned the task eration the extent to of writing the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade to his col- which the various justices league, fellow Nixon appointee Harry A. Blackman.2 are current in writing and As chief justice, Rehnquist claimed that he approached the task of opinion assignment in a strikingly different manner. “This is an important responsibility,” Rehnquist Justice Harry A. Blackmun, whose papers contain once observed, “and it is desirable that it be discharged 3 the assignment sheets carefully and fairly.” Quantitative analysis of patterns in that the chief justice Rehnquist’s assignment of opinions confirms that he circulated at the close of administered this task largely consistent with the goal of every oral argument.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting the Federalism Decisions of the Burger Court
    DAVID SCOTT LOUK Repairing the Irreparable: Revisiting the Federalism Decisions of the Burger Court A B ST R ACT. The text of a Supreme Court opinion rarely tells the full story of the debates, discussions, and disagreements that resulted in a particular decision. Drawing on previously unexamined archival papers of the Justices of the Burger Court, this Note tells the story of the Burger Court's federalism jurisprudence between 1975 and 1985, famously bookended by a pair of rare and abrupt reversals of Supreme Court precedent. The Note documents the Justices' deliberations for the first time, sheds new light on the institutional workings of the Court, and enriches our understanding of the foundations of modern federalism. In its federalism cases, the Burger Court grappled with the challenge of balancing the states' autonomy against the rise of new national problems and an expanding federal government's solutions to them. The Justices' papers show that they were more attuned to policy outcomes and the real-world consequences of their decisions than may typically be assumed. Above all, the papers reveal the Burger Court's deep struggle to articulate a sustainable federalism jurisprudence given the constraints of judicial craft. As the Note concludes, however, the Burger Court's uneven federalism experiments nonetheless laid the groundwork for the Court's subsequent attempts to fashion more workable doctrines. The Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have adjudicated federalism disputes more effectively by avoiding impracticable doctrines and remaining mindful of the institutional limitations of courts as federalism referees. A U T H 0 R. Law clerk to the Honorable James E.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court of the United States
    The Supreme Court of the United States Hearings and Reports on the Successful and Unsuccessful Nominations Now Includes the Kavanaugh and Preliminary Barrett Volumes! This online set contains all existing Senate documents for 1916 to date, as a result of the hearings and subsequent hearings on Supreme Court nominations� Included in the volumes are hearings never before made public! The series began with three volumes devoted to the controversial confirmation of Louis Brandeis, the first nominee subject to public hearings. The most recent complete volumes cover Justice Kavanaugh. After two years, the Judiciary Committee had finally released Kavanaugh’s nomination hearings, so we’ve been able to complete the online volumes� The material generated by Kavanaugh’s nomination was so voluminous that it takes up 8 volumes� The definitive documentary history of the nominations and confirmation process, this ongoing series covers both successful and unsuccessful nominations� As a measure of its importance, it is now consulted by staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee as nominees are considered� Check your holdings and complete your print set! Volume 27 (1 volume) 2021 Amy Coney Barrett �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Online Only Volume 26 (8 volumes) - 2021 Brett Kavanaugh ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Online Only Volume 25 (2 books) - 2018 Neil M� Gorsuch ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������$380�00
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Note: Justice Harry A. Blackmun's Observations from Oral
    Taking Note: Justice Harry A. Blackmun’s Observations from Oral Argument about Life, the Law, and the U.S. Supreme Court AMANDA C. BRYAN, RACHAEL HOUSTON, and TIMOTHY R. JOHNSON Introduction Thus, while Blackmun took his (usual) notes on Christopher Wright’s arguments for On November 4, 1992, the U.S. Supreme the federal government, Blackmun’s mind, Court heard oral arguments in Bath Iron and his pencil, wandered to how his life might Works v. Workers’ Compensation Programs.1 quickly change. Writing in his characteristic As attorneys presented their arguments, Jus- green pencil, he mused about the implica- tice Harry A. Blackmun, like the entire tions of the election, “What do I do now. nation, had a lot on his mind because the [R]etire at once, 6/30/93, 6/30/94.” He added, night before William Jefferson Clinton had perhaps nostalgically, “33 years ago today, I been elected the first Democratic President in went on the fed bench! Seems like yesterday. twelve years. While the political implications What a privileged experience!” of the Clinton victory would be undoubtedly We know what was going on in Black- vast, Blackmun was more concerned with mun’s mind that day only because he was a how it would affect him personally. It was just habitual note-taker. In fact, as he did in Bath days until Blackmun’s eighty-fourth birthday, Iron Works, in almost every case Blackmun and it suddenly seemed viable for him to took copious notes about what transpired depart and allow the new President to make a during oral arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • How Noninstitutionalized Media Change the Relationship Between the Public and Media Coverage of Trials
    06__WHEELER__CONTRACT PROOF.DOC 11/18/2008 11:41:41 AM HOW NONINSTITUTIONALIZED MEDIA CHANGE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND MEDIA COVERAGE OF TRIALS MARCY WHEELER* I INTRODUCTION Justice Brennan’s concurring opinion in Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart1 puts citizenship and the public at the heart of the purpose of media coverage of legal proceedings: Commentary and reporting on the criminal justice system is at the core of the First Amendment values, for the operation and integrity of that system is of crucial import to citizens concerned with the administration of government. Secrecy of judicial action can only breed ignorance and distrust of courts and suspicion concerning the competence and impartiality of judges; free and robust reporting, criticism, and debate can contribute to public understanding of the rule of law and to comprehension of the functioning of the entire criminal justice system, as well as improve the quality of that system by subjecting it to the cleansing effects of exposure and public accountability.2 That is, media coverage of legal proceedings should further the public understanding of those proceedings and of the legal system generally and should foster oversight over its functioning. Unfortunately, much coverage of legal proceedings now serves to increase ratings rather than to increase the public’s understanding of the justice system.3 Moreover, examples like early coverage of the Duke lacrosse case show that the press can exacerbate—rather than expose—abuses of the judicial system and the legal system generally. Since the advent of the Internet, however, additional media outlets—like blogs and wikis—have begun to change the relationship between media Copyright © 2008 by Marcy Wheeler.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Scalia and the Faltering of the Property Rights Movement Within the U.S
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2006 The Measure of a Justice: Justice Scalia and the Faltering of the Property Rights Movement within the U.S. Supreme Court Richard J. Lazarus Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/158 57 Hastings L.J. 759-825 (2006) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Judges Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons GEORGETOWN LAW Faculty Publications January 2010 The Measure of a Justice: Justice Scalia and the Faltering of the Property Rights Movement within the U.S. Supreme Court 57 Hastings L.J. 759-825 (2006) Richard J. Lazarus Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center [email protected] This paper can be downloaded without charge from: Scholarly Commons: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/158/ SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=847666 Posted with permission of the author The Measure of a Justice: Justice Scalia and the Faltering of the Property Rights Movement Within the Supreme Court RICHARD J. LAZARUS* Commentators generally evaluate Supreme Court Justices based on their votes in individual cases, especially the consistency of their voting records over time. Justices are also most closely identified by the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions that they author although, ironically, the most significant of the three-the majority opinions-are the least likely to reflect the actual views of the authoring Justice in all respects.
    [Show full text]
  • Unveiling Justice Blackmun Harold Hongju Koh
    Brooklyn Law Review Volume 72 Issue 1 SYMPOSIUM: Article 2 Justice Blackmun and Judicial Biography: A Conversation With Linda Greenhouse 2006 Unveiling Justice Blackmun Harold Hongju Koh Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr Recommended Citation Harold H. Koh, Unveiling Justice Blackmun, 72 Brook. L. Rev. (2006). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol72/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Law Review by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. Unveiling Justice Blackmun Harold Hongju Koh† I am delighted to have attended this illuminating symposium about Linda Greenhouse’s wonderful book, Becoming Justice Blackmun.1 The symposium covered two distinct subjects. The first is the story of Justice Blackmun, the Justice he became, and how we came to understand him. The second is the story of how the public learns about our Constitution and the Supreme Court Justices who interpret it. This Article focuses on the relationship between those subjects: how the process of unveiling Justice Blackmun and his work can help us as Americans to understand better our own Supreme Court. One could imagine at least three different attitudes toward how the public should learn about its Supreme Court. First, one could envision the mindset that the Court should be a total black box before, during and after the time a case is decided. Imagine a scenario where no Justices reveal how they might vote on a case before they vote, where none of their discussions are ever revealed while they are still on the bench, and where afterwards all their papers are burned.
    [Show full text]
  • Revelations from the Blackmun Papers on the Development of Death Penalty Law Martha Dragich University of Missouri School of Law, [email protected]
    University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Fall 2005 Revelations from the Blackmun Papers on the Development of Death Penalty Law Martha Dragich University of Missouri School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs Part of the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Martha J. Dragich, Revelations from the Blackmun Papers on the Development of Death Penalty Law, 70 Mo. L. Rev. 1183 (2005) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. Revelations from the Blackmun Papers on the Development of Death Penalty Law Martha Dragich Pearson* Justice Blackmun's legacy is strongly linked to two issues - abortion and capital punishment.' Blackmun's opinions in these controversial areas2 account for much of the notion that his ideology changed while on the Court. Participants in this Symposium have reflected on these and other areas where Justice Blackmun left his mark on American law. Professor Deason explores the arbitrability cases and shows that the Court struggled - and Justices changed their minds - even in connection with relatively technical legal is- sues arising in non-controversial commercial contexts.3 One reason the Court struggles with some issues is that legal standards are (or become) inherently contradictory or confusing over time. As the law evolves, it moves in direc- tions the Justices may not have anticipated and cannot continue to support.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Scalia and Fourth Estate Skepticism Ronnell Anderson Jones S.J
    SJ Quinney College of Law, University of Utah Utah Law Digital Commons Utah Law Faculty Scholarship Utah Law Scholarship 2017 Justice Scalia and Fourth Estate Skepticism RonNell Anderson Jones S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://dc.law.utah.edu/scholarship Part of the First Amendment Commons, Judges Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation 15 First Amend. L. Rev. 258, 287 (2017) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Utah Law Scholarship at Utah Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Utah Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JUSTICE SCALIA AND FOURTH ESTATE SKEPTICISM RonNell Andersen Jones* INTRODUCTION When news broke of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, some aspects of the Justice's legacy were instantly apparent. It was immediately clear that he would be remembered for his advocacy of constitutional originalism, his ardent opposition to the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation, and his authorship of the watershed Second Amendment case of the modern era.1 Yet there are other, less obvious but equally significant ways that Justice Scalia made his own unique mark and left behind a Court that was fundamentally different than the one he had joined thirty years earlier. Among them is the way he impacted the relationship between the Court and the press. When Scalia was confirmed as a Justice of the U.S.
    [Show full text]