Justice John Paul Stevens has announced his retirement today. Thus, my first "official" post falls into the category of "Freedom."
I wrote a paper in my Constitutional Law class at Belmont in 2003 about Justice Stevens and his interpretation of the 4th Amendment. Before introducing my conclusion from the paper, let me say that this was in my Liberal days. While I still have strong feelings about the 4th Amendment (that haven't changed much since this paper was written), my overall political ideology has shifted considerably. The paper's conclusion follows:
The value of consistency in cases can be debated as times change and circumstances change. However, when it comes to basic and fundamental freedoms the need for a consistent standard that works can be supported. Justice Stevens recognizes the need for such a standard and such tests. He also recognizes that the first interpretations held to be effective by the Warren Court are still valid today. As law enforcement utilizes new technology and tactics they have been able to slowly erode the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Even though Justice Stevens has the right idea on the Fourth Amendment and attempts to stay the course to prevent abuses of police power like the ones that led to the amendment in the first place, the Court has not always stood by his side. The man who used to be part of the majority on such cases has now become one of the lone dissenters. I believe him to be a remarkable man for his ability to stand up for the Fourth Amendment at the cost of appearing soft on crime. I feel that it is his understanding that each chip away at the rule of law concerning Fourth Amendment protections is truly “one giant leap” towards the words having no meaning at all. Once the standard of reasonableness is dropped, it is hard to restore. For this very reason the Court should avoid at all costs making any changes to the standard that had worked for almost twenty years before the Court began to move away. The chaos that has resulted since these slight changes were made have done massive harms to the rule of law in this nation. Because of simple cases like Bennis that appear to be simply common sense, but where the Court was obviously not interested in what was correct by the Constitution have led to rampant asset forfeiture laws in this nation. The government is now free to confiscate property without ever charging the owner with a crime—mere suspicion is enough. Because of cases like Bostick, police all over the country are free to harass and intimidate travelers in the name of protecting our children from the evils of drugs. Finally, because of cases like Segura police have no sense of responsibility to follow proper procedure—why should they when they have a standing Supreme Court case that condones their illegal activities? It is sad to see a nation supposedly in its most liberal era ever allow such heinous violations of personal liberty. Justice Stevens once moderate looks radically liberal on today’s Court. All I see is a man who understands what the words of the Fourth Amendment mean, and how they should apply so that they do not become useless in the future. Justice Stevens is over 80 years old, and will probably not remain on the Court for much longer. Unfortunately, when he goes so will the last rational voice regarding Fourth Amendment protections. No one will remain to speak up for those abused by law enforcement in the name of justice. What has this nation come to when violating the supreme law of the land, our honorable Constitution, is considered justice?
I particularly like my closing line. How cheesy! I thought about editing it out, but that would ruin the whole thing! I'm frequently embarrassed when I go back and read some of my older papers. But I digress. When I heard the news today I was unmoved. I couldn't quite figure out why until I remembered that Justice Stevens let me down in a major way in the case of Raich v. Gonzalez. Someone I had respected, and fully expected to take one Constitutional road, ruled against fairness, justice and reason that day. It has only been recently that I came to understand the ideology that led to that decision for Stevens. For those of you not familiar with Raich v. Gonzalez, no fear. I'm sure I'll be discussing it in detail in the coming months because it is important to the current legal challenges to the Health Care Bill.
Stevens retirement won't change the makeup of the court. The only thing that saddens me is that I honestly thought he would die on the bench. If anyone was going to, it was going to be Stevens. I've been waiting for years for an announcement of his death or retirement since I spent so much time studying and writing about him. The Supreme Court has always fascinated me, and there was a time when I was little I wanted to be a Supreme Court Justice. Until I found out how hard it is. It is kind of like being a Jehovah's Witness. If only 144,000 are getting into heaven, why try?
For a few months I lived 6 blocks from the Supreme Court building. I used to walk past it on a daily basis and I could see the roof from my balcony (aka fire escape). I still remember the first time I ever saw it, on our 8th Grade trip to D.C. I remember how it felt. It still felt just as awe inspiring when I walked past it on my way to and from work, or to and from lunch. Or stumbling past it drunk as a sailor, since that was the summer I turned 21. Before I left my internship with Rep. Cooper's office, I booked myself for a tour as a graduation present for myself. For good or bad, no matter how I feel about decisions or individual justices, when I think about the Supreme Court and I see the building in my head and I feel the awe inside. It is similar to what a "normal" child feels the first time they see Mickey Mouse or their favorite cartoon character or superhero. I was never normal, though. My "warm fuzzy" is a cold, white marble building on top of a hill in a drained swamp.
Best wishes to Justice Stevens. May you live long enough to enjoy your retirement!

No comments:
Post a Comment