A Judge's Regret

In a recent interview with NPR, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is candid about his work on the court. When asked if he regrets any decisions in his thirty-four years as associate justice, Stevens says only one, when he and others upheld the death penalty in 1976.

While it is remarkable (and telling of his constancy) that among hundreds of decisions, he regrets but one—a likely inconsequential one at that, given the majority of 6:3 on that morbid decision—it is also a sad reminder of one of the ugliest sides of the American judicial system: it's perpetuation of state-sponsored murder—a most cruel and unusual punishment—that has cost hundreds of (sometimes innocent) Americans their life.

Here's a part of his interview.

Talk About Activist Judges!

Conservatives will throw around the phrase 'activist judges' quite liberally anytime there is a judicial nomination to be made on the Federal level, or anytime there is a recognition of the constitutional or human rights of a disenfranchised or targeted minority.

Little do they know (or do they know very well...?) that conservative judges are the most staunchly activist of all. As this report from The New York Times shows, the Roberts Court has been the most conservative in the history of the judicial body and the trend to more conservative decisions shows no signs of weakening, despite a second addition by president Obama.

Perhaps liberals and progressives ought to adopt an equally charged language when referring to judges in the Supreme Court and elsewhere in Federal courts across the nation. After all, what is more activist than a judge who adopts an intractably conservative position and whose decisions can be predicted with almost 100% certainty, as in the case of Antonin Scalia or, the loonier loon, Clarence Thomas? No, Samuel Alito, you were not forgotten; you are sure to give both these justices a run for their money if they want to remain on the extreme right of the Supreme Court.

The Next Supreme Court Justice

Actually, I don't know who it is going to be yet. Newsweek has a round-up of the likely candidates, along with the case for each of them from someone who knows them from up close.

I don't know whom I would prefer yet. I would advocate the nomination of someone who has a realistic and present-day interpretation of the Constitution. Someone who isn't limited by the narrow interpretation of the Constitution as a document that already contains every possible right we could ever be afforded or guaranteed. This originalist view on the Constitution is antiquated and downright wrong. I mean, look at Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. They're far from being the most reasonable justices out there. And just because the founding fathers (who, after all, could not have been infallible) did not imagine certain rights, it does not mean that they are not guaranteed by the constitution. I doubt Jefferson or the others ever envisioned equality for blacks or women, so just because we gave it to them, doesn't mean it was unconstitutional.

Stevens in Perspective

Everybody is talking about the retirement of the Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. Rachel Maddow tackles the retirement and puts in perspective the politics and rightward shifting of the Supreme Court.

By contiguity, one can argue that the entire nation has experienced—and, despite Obama as president, is still experiencing—the same shift.