JUSTICE STEVENS RETROSPECTIVE

Two interesting articles on Justice Stevens. 

In this Atlantic article by the late Justice, Justice Stevens writes that  Justice Scalia's  majority opinion in the Second Amendment case Heller was "The Worst Decision of My Tenure."  The article is here.
Justice Stevens write eloquently on the tragedies of firearms in our society and his belief that a constitutional amendment is desperately needed to overrule Heller and it's effects on firearms and shooting tragedies  in the United States. 

In this recent Op Ed piece, Law Professor Barry McDonald gives a well reasoned (real) conservative analysis of why Judges who don't have a judicial philosophy, may be nice people who want to do the right thing, but who represent a danger to the Constitution and the rule of law. The argument, boiled down to its essence, is that you do not want a judge who makes decisions based on their personal view of what is right. What a judge appointed by Donald Trump thinks is right may be vastly different then what a judge appointed by Jimmy Carter thinks is right, and both of those judges may have a different view of what is right then, say, a judge appointed by a President George Wallace- to give an extreme example. 
What you want are judge's who have a consistent and coherent judicial philosophy because in the end, a consistent philosophy withstands the vagaries of trendy ideals, beliefs, and views. 

JUSTICE STEVENS

If you didn't catch it on 60 minutes last night, this interview with Justice Stevens is well worth the time. His insights on court issues large and small are gems. His criticism of Bush v. Gore is right on the money as is his view on Citizens United. Both cases show that "conservative" judges have no problem with legislating from the bench and being "activist" so long as the issue is important to their cause. Stevens wrote in dissent in Citizens United that he feared for the court. He is not alone in his fears.

JUSTICE STEVENS PROBABLY TO RETIRE

No surprise there with the NY Times article that Justice Stevens will probably announce his retirement shortly, giving the President time to nominate a Justice and get him or her confirmed over the summer.

There are still pros and cons to be considered,” Justice John Paul Stevens said in his Supreme Court chambers on Friday afternoon, reflecting on his reluctance to leave a job he loves after almost 35 years. But his calculus seemed to be weighted toward departure, and he said his decision on the matter would come very soon....

“What really for me marks a conservative judge is one who doesn’t decide more than he has to in order to do his own job,” he said, relaxed in shirt sleeves and his signature bow tie in chambers floodlit by April sunshine. “Our job is to decide cases and resolve controversies. It’s not to write broad rules that may answer society’s questions at large.”

He is known for his fast and prolific writing, and for relying less on his law clerks than some other justices do.

“I write the first draft,” he said. “One of the tests I had for myself as to when I would retire was that if I ever got to the point that I stopped writing the first draft that would be a sign that I was no longer up to the job the way I think it should be done.”

That day, he said, has not yet come. “Everything that’s got my name on it, I wrote the first draft,” Justice Stevens said.