Highlights from Justice Stevens' opinions

[thinkinkmesa]

Highlights from Justice Stevens' opinions

Justice John Paul Stevens, more than any other justice on the left, has taken the lead to craft coalitions that include swing-vote conservatives, allowing liberals to prevail in some key cases that limited the death penalty and expanded gay rights even as the court turned increasingly to the right.
Highlights from Stevens' opinions:

• Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica, 1978: Wrote the court's opinion upholding an FCC regulation against broadcasting indecent material during daytime and early evening hours. The case involved George Carlin's "seven dirty words" monologue, which aired at 2 p.m. on a Pacifica radio station and prompted a complaint from a father whose son had heard the monologue. Stevens wrote that the broadcast was indecent and properly sanctioned by the FCC. He noted that "broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children, even those too young to read. … Pacifica's broadcast (of Carlin's seven dirty words) could have enlarged a child's vocabulary in an instant."

• Chisom v. Roemer, 1991: Wrote the majority opinion finding that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended in 1982) covered judicial elections and not just congressional representatives. Stevens said, "It is difficult to believe that Congress, in an express effort to broaden the protection afforded by the Voting Rights Act, withdrew … an important category of elections (those of judges) from that protection."

• McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 1995: Wrote the court's opinion saying states cannot bar the distribution of anonymous campaign leaflets. "Under our Constitution," he wrote, "anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent."

• U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 1995: Wrote the opinion for the majority saying states may not limit the number of terms their representatives serve in Congress.

• Bush v. Gore, 2000: Wrote the lead dissenting opinion asserting that the high court should have left to Florida and its election personnel decisions on how to count votes in the disputed presidential election. "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election," Stevens wrote, "the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."

• Atkins v. Virginia, 2002: Wrote the opinion for the majority saying the execution of mentally retarded criminals violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. He noted the majority of states had adopted such a prohibition and said that consensus reflects a widespread view about the limited judgment and relative moral culpability of mentally retarded criminals.

• Rasul v. Bush, 2004: Wrote the opinion for the majority finding that the nearly 600 foreigners then in U.S. military custody in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could get into federal court to challenge the constitutionality of their detentions. Stevens emphasized of the detainees at the time, "They have never been afforded access to any tribunal, much less charged with and convicted of wrongdoing; and for more than two years they have been imprisoned in territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control."

• Baze v. Rees, 2008: Joined the majority's judgment in rejecting a challenge from convicted murderers in Kentucky to a widely used three-drug lethal injection, yet wrote separately to conclude for the first time that the death penalty should be abolished. "I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty represents the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes. A penalty with such negligible returns to the State is patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010: Wrote the dissenting opinion to the majority view permitting new corporate spending in elections. Stevens, joined by three other justices, said the majority decision was "at war" with decades of work by legislatures to safeguard the electoral process, and he forcefully rejected the notion that corporations should be treated in the same manner as individuals supporting candidates. Stevens noted that challenges to the disputed provision had been made and rejected in earlier cases: "The only relevant thing that has changed … is the composition of this court," he said.

To read more or access links within article;
www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-04-09-stevens-case-list_N.htm

[thinkinkmesa]

Ohio senators weigh in on Supreme Court justice nominees

GOP Sen. George V. Voinovich of Ohio was a "yes" vote the first time President Barack Obama nominated a justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, one of just nine Republicans to vote for now Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Voinovich's rationale signals he will be a Republican vote Democrats hope to win again. Voinovich is leaving the Senate at the end of this year, so a Supreme Court confirmation vote later this year could be one of his last major votes as a U.S. senator.

Voinovich, who is in Portugal today at a conference on energy security and climate change, issued a statement praising Justice John Paul Stevens for "distinguished service" after news broke of his coming retirement this summer.

Voinovich said once Obama nominates a replacement, "I look forward to treating his nominee fairly and reviewing their impartiality, integrity, legal expertise and judicial temperament. It is the Senate's role to exercise the constitutional power to advise and consent, and I look forward to fair and rigorous hearings."

Voinovich said last August, when he voted in favor of Sotomayor, that he made his decision based on factors such as prior judicial experience, judicial temperament and commitment to the rule of law not on whether he would have made the nomination himself.

"Judge Sotomayor is not the nominee I would have selected if I were president, but making a nomination is not my role here today. My role is to examine her qualifications to determine if she is fit to serve," Voinovich said then.

Voinovich is not on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and neither is Ohio's other senator, Democrat Sherrod Brown, so neither will play a formal role in the confirmation process until the Senate floor debate and vote.

Brown is in a group of self-described progressive Democrats who will be hoping Obama doesn't name too-centrist a candidate to the high court. Stevens was the dean of the court's liberal bloc.

Brown said in a statement, "Justice Stevens has devoted his life to serving our country. His unwavering commitment to equality under the law should serve as an example to all judges and lawyers. As President Obama prepares to nominate his replacement, I hope he will name a candidate with the same commitment to a pursuit of justice and devoid of ideology or hidden agenda."

More;
www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/04/09/stevens-retiring.html?sid=101

[thinkinkmesa]

U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens had a legacy in standing up for women's rights, the disabled and minorities, Ohio court watchers said. However, others characterized him as someone who cannot be labeled.

Stevens announced Friday he would retire at the end of this term. President Gerald R. Ford appointed Stevens in 1975.

He handled emergency matters for all of the 6th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, meaning his desk was one of the final stops for Ohio death-row inmates seeking a stay of execution.

He also wrote the majority opinion in a 1995 case, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, saying that states could not bar the distribution of anonymous campaign leaflets.

Ohio's U.S. senators -- Republican George Voinovich and Democrat Sherrod Brown -- recognized Stevens' service on the bench and in the military. And both will have a say in approving President Barack Obama's choice to succeed the justice.

"As the nomination process begins, I hope that the president will confer with the leaders of the Senate," Voinovich said in a statement. "Once President Obama has made a decision on a nominee, I look forward to treating his nominee fairly and reviewing their impartiality, integrity, legal expertise and judicial temperament."

In a separate statement, Brown said, "As the Senate prepares for the confirmation process of President Obama's nominee, I hope we can honor Justice Stevens' legacy and ensure that the Supreme Court does not give preference to the special interests of the privileged few over the rights and liberties of all Americans."

Both Brown and Voinovich supported Obama's nomination of Justice Sonya Sotomayor in 2009.

It is unlikely that anyone from Ohio will replace Stevens, court observers said. Ohio's Supreme Court is made up entirely of Republicans. On the 6th Circuit, there are only two judges based in Ohio who were appointed by a Democratic president. Bill Clinton appointed Karen Nelson Moore and R. Guy Cole Jr. in 1995.

Ruth Colker, a constitutional law professor at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, said Stevens was a champion in protecting the rights of women, the disabled and racial minorities.

She cited one 2004 case, Tennessee vs. Lane, in which a man in a wheelchair who couldn't get to a second-floor courtroom was held in contempt. He sued, and courtrooms in Ohio and across the country later had that case in mind while making their buildings more accessible. Stevens wrote the majority opinion, maintaining that the man had the right to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Rebecca Zietlow, professor of law at the University of Toledo, said Stevens took a non-ideological approach to making decisions. "He's from Illinois, so he's a Midwesterner, which shows through his pragmatic approach to the law," she said.

James Hardiman, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, said Stevens could not be labeled. "He was a stabilizing force on the Supreme Court," Hardiman said.

For example, Stevens was in the minority by saying that flag burning should be criminalized. Hardiman said Stevens supported setting up war-crime tribunals for Guantanamo prisoners and supported their ability to sue in federal court.

Michael Kirkman, executive director of the Ohio Legal Rights Service, said Stevens believed Congress had broad authority to enact legislation to help people with disabilities get protection.

Stevens wrote the majority opinion in Adkins v. Virginia, where the court decided 6-3 that people with mental retardation should not be subject to capital punishment, Kirkman said. However, Hardiman noted, he voted to reinstate the death penalty in 1976.

The nomination process for Stevens' replacement likely will reignite a divisive debate.

Kellie Copeland, executive director of the Ohio chapter of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, said Stevens was an advocate for upholding Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that legalized abortion nationwide.

"He was a justice who really stood up for every American's right to make their own medical decisions and their right to make their own moral decisions," Copeland said.

More;
www.lancastereaglegazette.com/article/20100410/NEWS01/4100309