|
||
Name:
John Paul Stevens
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Dates:
Born: April 20, 1920 in Chicago, Illinois
Died: n/a
Northwestern University Law Degree: 1947
Associate Justice: December 19, 1975 -
Biography:
John Paul Stevens was the only nominee to the Supreme Court ever made by
President Gerald Ford - and he has turned out to be a very good one, having
created a strong reputation as a moderate judge. The label "moderate" here
should not be confused with "mediocre" - Stevens has also been very independent.
For example, during his initial terms he wrote more dissenting opinions than
any justice before him.
Ford wanted to moderate conservative, but at times John Paul Stevens has acted more like a moderate liberal. Perhaps a more accurate label would be moderate pragmatist - he has a great respect for practical considerations and is no friend of extremely abstract constitutional reasoning. Very often this emphasis on practical and pragmatic questions makes him a voice for judicial restraint rather than judicial activism, but it also means that he has one eye firmly set on the consequences his decisions might have for the real people who appear before him.
Perhaps the best way to explain it is that, unlike Rehnquist, Stevens does not exercise a judicial restraint of deference to the other branches of government under the idea that the judicial branch should remain weak. No, for Stevens the Supreme Court should show restraint in the sense that it should simply limit how often it makes decisions and it should limit the breadth and scope of those decisions. Stevens' aim is to resolve the disputes which come before him rather than create broad legal principles.
When it comes to cases involving civil liberties, however, John Paul Stevens has taken an increasing interest in a very broad reading of the Fourteenth Amendment and a strong sympathy for those who claim discrimination. He has, in fact, been just about the only justice since 1968 who has consistently voted in support of the suits brought by criminal defendants and against the majority. For Stevens, the Supreme Court must remain a bulwark against incursions on liberty by the other two branches.
Also Known As: none
Alternate Spellings: none
Common Misspellings: none
Related Resources:
What are Political and Legal Philosophy
The Philosophy of Politics and the Philosophy of Law are often studied separately, but they are presented here jointly because they both come back to the same thing: the study of force. Politics is the study of political force in the general community, while jurisprudence is the study of how laws can and should be used to achieve political and social goals.What is Philosophy?
What is philosophy? Is there any point in studying philosophy, or is it a useless subject? What are the different branches of philosophy - what's the difference between aestheitcs and ethics? What's the difference between metaphysics and epistemology?
