John Paul Stevens

Five Chiefs A Supreme Court Memoir John Paul Stevens Little Brown: 292 pp., $24.99 There is something about the dignity of the Supreme Court that apparently causes its justices to adjust its realities in their writings. Chief Justice Earl Warren, the first chief to write an autobiography (though he died before finishing it), insisted that there had never been any disagreement among his colleagues over Brown vs. Board of Education; that was quaint but false. Justice Stephen Breyer's most recent book held that the brethren "maintain good relations with one another" no matter how deep their differences; that too is a bit hard to believe.

They might well be the most powerful men and women in the nation, but most Americans probably couldn't pick the members of the U.S. Supreme Court out of a lineup. (Unless perhaps they were the only ones wearing long black robes.) As the court's current term draws to a close, it's issuing a series of monumental decisions this week that will affect every man, woman and child in the country. Today alone, the court handed down a split decision on Arizona's controversial immigration law, and ruled that it was unconstitutional to send juveniles to prison for life without the possibility of parole.

Justice John Paul Stevens quietly marked his 89th birthday last week by showing once again his powerful influence on the law. Over the last decade, he has led a series of liberal victories on issues such as the death penalty, gay rights and Guantanamo Bay -- and he has done it on a court that often leans to the right. Many times his views have prevailed, even decades after he staked out his position.

Five Chiefs A Supreme Court Memoir John Paul Stevens Little Brown: 292 pp., $24.99 There is something about the dignity of the Supreme Court that apparently causes its justices to adjust its realities in their writings. Chief Justice Earl Warren, the first chief to write an autobiography (though he died before finishing it), insisted that there had never been any disagreement among his colleagues over Brown vs. Board of Education; that was quaint but false. Justice Stephen Breyer's most recent book held that the brethren "maintain good relations with one another" no matter how deep their differences; that too is a bit hard to believe.

Arguing before the Supreme Court is not for the timid or the easily unnerved. The justices interrupt the lawyers with ever-sharper questions. Then when an attorney tries to offer an answer, he is likely to be cut off by scornful jabs from other justices. But nearly every contentious argument has a gentle interval. Sitting quietly in the middle of the bench is the white-haired Justice John Paul Stevens, sporting a bow tie and broad-rimmed glasses.

Republican presidential hopeful Pat Robertson said that Americans would be better off if liberal Supreme Court justices Thurgood Marshall, William J. Brennan Jr. and John Paul Stevens were either retired or dead. Robertson made his remarks to Republican members of the North Carolina Legislature. "We have many social concerns in this country," Robertson said. "Most of those social concerns would be solved if (they) were to be either retired or to be promoted to that great courtroom in the sky."

Speaking at a Little Rock college, conservative commentator Ann Coulter joked that Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned. Coulter told the Philander Smith College audience that more conservative justices were needed on the Supreme Court to change the current law on abortion. Stevens is one of the court's more liberal members. "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said. "That's just a joke, for you in the media."

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens refused Saturday to block an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that gave custody of a boy known as Baby Richard to the biological father he has never met. Stevens issued a two-page ruling denying emergency stay requests by lawyers for the boy, who is almost 4, and for the couple who adopted him. Stevens rejected their claim that they were entitled to a hearing before the full court.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has begun radiation treatment for prostate cancer, but his condition is not serious and he does not expect to miss any time on the bench. In a statement issued Monday, a high court spokeswoman said that a recent biopsy detected a "localized, early (stage)" tumor in his prostate gland.

Justice John Paul Stevens called Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork a "very well-qualified candidate" and a "welcome addition to the court," according to published reports. Public remarks by sitting justices on the qualifications of nominees are rare, but Stevens told a meeting of federal judges he saw no reason to hold back, according to a Saturday report in the New York Times. President Reagan nominated Bork to replace Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Justice John Paul Stevens spent 35 years on the Supreme Court writing legal opinions. So it's not surprising his first book, "Five Chiefs," is chock-full of opinions — about where his fellow justices went wrong. For example, Stevens, 91 and retired, describes Bush vs. Gore — the decision that resolved the contentious 2000 presidential election — as the result of a "frivolous" appeal that shouldn't have been granted. That was a "low point" in his tenure on the court, he said in a recent interview.

As President Obama considers nominees to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a debate bubbles as to whether religion should play a role in his choice. This is a no-brainer. The religious views of the next justice of the high court must absolutely be a decisive factor. Though the court without Stevens will be left with six Catholics and two Jews, the open seat should not go to either domination. Nor should it go to a Presbyterian, a Lutheran, a Methodist, a Muslim or even a Zoroastrian.

When Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens steps down this summer, he will leave the court — long dominated by Protestants — without one for the first time in its history. That historical oddity has reopened a low-key debate as to whether the religion of a justice matters, and whether President Obama should consider the faith of his next nominee. Absent Stevens, the Supreme Court will be composed of six Catholic and two Jewish justices. Two of the three candidates said to be the favorites for the nomination — Solicitor General Elena Kagan and federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland — are Jewish.

Judging Stevens Re "A legacy not easily defined," April 10 The Times paints a moving portrait of Justice John Paul Stevens, whose retirement indeed marks the end of an era. But The Times mischaracterizes that era. The three decades before Stevens' ascent to the high court were marked by unprecedented liberal activism. The "status quo" he allegedly defended was in fact a radical departure from historic norms, as illustrated by Roe vs. Wade -- which overturned the status quo ante just two years before Stevens' arrival.

The White House list of potential nominees to fill the latest vacancy on the Supreme Court comprises an ethnically and geographically diverse group of at least 10 candidates, including established jurists and politicians, moderates and progressives. The list includes a sitting governor, Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan, and a Cabinet secretary, Janet Napolitano of the Homeland Security Department. But some people who are also believed to be candidates, including Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and banking-bailout watchdog Elizabeth Warren, are not on the list.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced his retirement Friday, will not be remembered as the champion of a distinctive theory of the U.S. Constitution or as the author of a number of notable landmark rulings. But in almost 35 years on the Supreme Court, the former antitrust lawyer from Chicago epitomized an approach to judging that always serves the court well: dispassionate, deliberative, but also determined to adapt to changes in the life of the nation. In choosing a successor, President Obama is under no obligation to clone Stevens; but he should insist that his nominee share these qualities.

John Paul Stevens, at 87 the oldest and longest-serving member of the Supreme Court, signaled Thursday that he doesn't plan to retire from his "very wonderful job" soon. "I'm blessed by a job where there's no set retirement age. There's no set term limit. I happen to enjoy the job," Stevens told an audience at the 9th Circuit Judicial Conference. "I'm still performing in an acceptable manner." Stevens didn't expand on his plans.

The nation's longest-serving Supreme Court justice, John Paul Stevens, on Wednesday declared his formal opposition to capital punishment. Stevens, 87, was part of the court majority that reinstated the death penalty in America in 1976. But in a concurring opinion to Wednesday's ruling that Kentucky's use of lethal injection is constitutional, Stevens wrote that the death penalty no longer served a legitimate social function.

'The justice in the bow tie' April 20, 1920: Born John Paul Stevens in Chicago, the youngest of four sons to a successful hotel owner. 1941: Graduates Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Chicago with a bachelor's degree in English literature. June 7, 1942: Marries Elizabeth Jane Sheeren; they have four children (John Joseph, Kathryn, Elizabeth Jane and Susan Roberta). 1942: Begins three years of service in the U.S. Naval Reserve, earning a Bronze Star as a code-breaker.

Here's a look at some opinions by Justice John Paul Stevens: Texas vs. Johnson (1989) Stevens dissented from the majority in a case that lifted prohibitions on flag burning. "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.