Yes, Stupak, one of the Democrats behind the health care bill, is stepping down, so that he can “spend more time with his family.” Of course this gives Republicans a much better chance at his seat in November. But probably more importantly and definitely likely to have a much longer-lasting impact is another retirement: that of Justice Stevens from the Supreme Court.
Here are a few interesting cases in which Stevens wrote opinions (there are many of them, but there is only room for a few):
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1984* – Dissent
Stevens generally voted with the Left on issues regarding search and seizure. This case was about a high school girl who was caught smoking, subsequently checked for drugs/drug paraphernalia and found to have marijuana and related things, including drug sale documents, in her purse. She, of course, got in major trouble… and then she appealed, claiming that a principle did not have the right to search her purse while she was at school. The Court ruled 6-3 that the search was reasonable under the 4th amendment, and Stevens wrote a dissent.
Texas v. Johnson, 1989* – Dissent
A World War II veteran, he often cited the WWII era in his opinions, possibly trying to appeal to something to which many people, liberal or conservative, can relate. For example, during the oral arguments for Texas v. Johnson, his face showed his anger during one of the attorney’s glib defense of flag burning. The case, which was decided 5-4, decided against a prohibition on flag desecration. Stevens wrote his own dissent, declaring,
“The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for — and our history demonstrates that they are — it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration.”
Gonzales v. Raich, 2004* – Majority Opinion
You might think that the most liberal Justice on the 2005 court would have voted to allow states to decide whether or not to allow the local cultivation of (medical) marijuana. Nope. Stevens, as well as the other liberals (as well as Kennedy and Scalia), actually voted to allow Congress to restrict the growing of pot in any state or locality. However, it’s worth pointing out and understanding- this case really wasn’t about the growing of marijuana; it was about whether or not the federal government (Congress) had the power to regulate trade that affected the entire United States. For anyone familiar with early Supreme Court history, this idea hearkens all the way back to 1824, when Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the majority opinion for Gibbons v. Ogden.
The extent and significance of Stevens‘ mark on Supreme Court history is uncertain, but he has indeed left his mark. He is the fourth longest serving Justice on the Court and is currently (until he retires later this year, of course) the oldest and most senior member of the high Court. He has tried to avoid being labelled a liberal zealot or a reactionary conservative; though he is usually far more liberal, he votes based on the facts of each case rather than along party lines.
Now we get to wait and see who the next Justice will be… the Obama administration has enough time to pick a candidate and get him/her through the Senate before November. It will be interesting to see how the fact that this is an election year effects the questioning and/or voting.
*The years you find here are the years in which the cases were argued. Sometimes the cases were also decided that year–sometimes not.
Wonderful thought. I love it. Thank you for sharing