[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5795-5797]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today is Justice John Paul Stevens' 
birthday, and I cannot help but think about that and some wonderful 
conversations I have had with him of late. As I said, his retirement 
from the Supreme Court will begin to draw to a close an extraordinary 
judicial career spanning four decades, including 35 years on the 
Nation's highest Court.
  It is interesting, Justice Stevens and I both came to Washington in 
the wake of the Watergate scandal in 1975. President Ford was impressed 
by Justice Stevens' anticorruption record, including his investigation 
of two Illinois Supreme Court Justices who were charged with accepting 
bribes. His confirmation to the Supreme Court was the first of a dozen 
Supreme Court nominations I have considered and voted on in my years in 
the Senate. As a young freshman Senator, it was my privilege to support 
his confirmation in 1975. Incidentally, he was nominated by a 
Republican President and considered by an overwhelmingly Democratic 
Senate. From the time he was nominated until the time he was confirmed 
unanimously, it was 2\1/2\ weeks.
  Justice Stevens is the only sitting Justice with Active military 
service during wartime. He is the last Justice from the ``Greatest 
Generation.'' He has never turned away when the Nation

[[Page 5796]]

sought his service. He worked as a Navy intelligence officer during 
World War II, and that earned him a Bronze Star.
  Justice Stevens' unique and enduring perspective is irreplaceable; 
his stalwart adherence to the rule of law is unparalleled. The Federal 
judiciary and indeed the entire Nation will miss his principled 
jurisprudence. Today, as he marks another milestone with the 
celebration of his 90th birthday, and as we continue to honor his 
legacy, I want to mention just a few of his most notable opinions.
  During my 35 years in the Senate, I have submitted briefs to the 
Supreme Court in only a few cases. The most recent case was very 
important to me. It involved a Vermont musician named Diana Levine.
  Ms. Levine was forced--remember, she is a musician--she was forced to 
endure the amputation of her arm after she was injected with a drug to 
treat nausea. The drug maker failed to include critical information on 
its warning label that could have saved Ms. Levine's arm, and she 
ultimately sued the drug maker for this failure. A Vermont jury awarded 
Ms. Levine damages for the injuries that forever altered her life and 
career. Justice Stevens wrote the Court's opinion in that important 
case. He concluded that Food and Drug Administration approval of a drug 
for sale does not prevent that corporation from being held accountable 
under State consumer protection laws. In Ms. Levine's case, a Vermont 
jury heard all the facts and determined that the corporation had 
improperly labeled its product and failed to warn about the risks of 
injecting the drug. Justice Stevens' opinion in the Levine case ensured 
that millions of Americans who rely on pharmaceuticals will be 
protected by their own state laws, and will not be denied access to 
justice if they are injured. Although most Americans never expect that 
they will need to go to court, the right to do so is enshrined in our 
Constitution. Justice Stevens wrote a similarly compelling decision for 
the Court in a case called Tennessee v. Lane.
  Justice Stevens has written important opinions in cases in which the 
Supreme Court has upheld the power of Congress to pass legislation that 
protects the Americans we represent. He has brought to his opinions a 
keen understanding of the distinct roles set forth in our Constitution 
for courts and for the democratically elected Congress. He has 
maintained a fervent respect for both.
  In Gonzales v. Raich and in Tennessee v. Lane, Justice Stevens 
authored the Supreme Court's opinions upholding the actions of Congress 
to protect Americans. I suspect these precedents will be even more 
important as the Supreme Court continues to examine laws passed by 
Congress to protect Americans from discriminatory health insurance 
policies and fraudulent Wall Street practices.
  Justice Stevens has also written important decisions that involve the 
enforcement of laws duly passed by Congress. He authored a powerful 
opinion for the Court in one of the most important environmental 
protection decisions in recent memory. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the 
Court concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency had to live up 
to its name and mission in implementing the Clean Air Act, despite the 
Bush administration's refusal to do so. Justice Stevens wrote: 
``Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's 
definition of air pollutant' we hold that EPA has the statutory 
authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor 
vehicles.'' The Court rejected the Bush administration's rationale for 
refusing to enforce the law. The Nation will be better served for that 
decision.
  Some of the most important cases decided by this Supreme Court in the 
last decade have involved the limits of Presidential power in time of 
war, and Justice Stevens has left his mark on many of them. His 
experience serving this country in wartime no doubt contributed to his 
understanding. I said earlier that he is the only member of the Supreme 
Court who has served his country in wartime in the military. In Rasul 
v. Bush, the Court held that our Federal courts have jurisdiction over 
detainees held by the Government, even though they are not citizens of 
the United States. A few years later, Justice Stevens wrote for the 
court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and concluded that our Government has to 
follow our laws, including the Geneva Conventions, in trying prisoners 
detained at Guantnamo Bay. At their core, these decisions upheld the 
notion that the rule of law applies even in a time of war--something 
the Founders of this country believed.
  As the most senior Justice on the Court, Justice Stevens has the 
authority to write the opinion of the Court when the Chief Justice is 
in dissent. In two of the most important civil rights cases of the 
decade, Grutter v. Bollinger and Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Stevens 
extended the privilege of the writing the majority opinion to other 
Justices. In Grutter, the Court upheld the University of Michigan Law 
School's admissions policy in an opinion by Justice Sandra Day 
O'Connor. Justice Stevens joined that opinion, which recognized a 
compelling educational interest in racial diversity. In Lawrence v. 
Texas, the Court held that consensual sexual conduct was protected by 
the Constitution from government intrusion. The majority opinion, in 
which Justice Stevens joined, was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. 
The impact of these two rulings on hardworking Americans was immediate; 
I hope they will endure.
  A decade ago, the Supreme Court unnecessarily waded into the 
political thicket to determine the outcome of the 2000 Presidential 
election. In a scathing dissent, Justice Stevens lamented that the 
decision would damage the Court's reputation as impartial. Of course, 
he was right, and it did damage the Court's reputation. He had noted, 
and I quote:

       Although we may never know with complete certainty the 
     identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, 
     the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the 
     Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of 
     the rule of law.

  He was right to speak so critically of what was a blatant political 
decision.
  While the public's memory of that politically charged decision 
finally began to recede, the Supreme Court again opened the floodgates, 
issuing its latest election-related decision in the Citizens United 
case. In Citizens United, five Justices with the stroke of a pen 
overturned a century of law to permit corporations to overwhelm and 
distort the democratic process. Those five justices substituted their 
own preferences for that of Congress, which had built on decades of 
legal development to pass bipartisan campaign finance reform 
legislation after an open and extensive debate. In order to reach its 
divisive decision granting corporations, banks, and insurance companies 
rights that were once reserved for individual Americans, the Court 
overstepped the proper judicial role, and rejected not just the 
conclusions of the elected branches, but also its own recent precedent 
upholding the very same law it now overturned. In what may be his most 
powerful dissent, Justice Stevens noted that the ``Court's ruling 
threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the 
nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do 
damage to this institution.''
  I agree with Justice Stevens in both of these dissents. I join him in 
his concern for the Court's reputation. Two of the three branches of 
government are involved in campaigns and elections. When the American 
people see the courts reaching out to influence those elections, they 
rightly get suspicious of its impartiality.
  While I supported his confirmation, as I said before, as a very 
junior, very new Senator, I have not always agreed with Justice 
Stevens. But my admiration for his service is not based merely on the 
results of the cases that came before him, nor solely on his judgment 
or his forthrightness, but, rather, also on the manner in which he 
approached the law and his vigilant concern for public confidence in 
our courts.
  If we lose that public confidence in our Court, we lose one of the 
greatest mainstays of our democracy. If a society does not have 
confidence in the integrity and the independence of their

[[Page 5797]]

courts, there is no way they can maintain a democracy, there is no way 
they can maintain a check and balance.
  I have always respected the way in which Justice Stevens has 
conducted himself as a Justice and the way he has explained his 
conclusions. He and I share a view of government transparency that is a 
vital element of our democracy. No one can question Justice Stevens' 
integrity, nor his dedication to public service.
  Today, I join a grateful nation in wishing Justice John Paul Stevens 
a very happy 90th birthday. We are indebted to him for his service. I 
hope the next nomination to the Supreme Court will honor his 
extraordinary legacy.
  The choice of a Supreme Court nominee is one of the most important 
and enduring decisions any President can make. A year before he died, 
President Gerald Ford wrote this about Justice Stevens: ``I am prepared 
to allow history's judgment of my term in office to rest (if necessary, 
exclusively) on my nomination 30 years ago of John Paul Stevens to the 
U.S. Supreme Court.'' What a tribute. No doubt every President would 
want to be able to say that about the quality of his Court selections.
  The law is not a game to be played or a puzzle to be solved. The law 
is intended to serve the people--protecting the freedom of individuals 
from the tyranny of government or the mob, and helping to organize our 
society for the good of all. No Justice should substitute his or her 
personal preferences and overrule congressional efforts to protect 
hardworking Americans pursuant to our constitutional role.
  I am looking forward to meeting with President Obama tomorrow to 
discuss his selection of a nominee to succeed Justice Stevens. Then, 
and in any private discussions, I will suggest that he pick someone who 
approaches every case with an open mind and a commitment to fairness. 
Someone who will heed the Vermont marble inscribed above the entrance 
of the Supreme Court which pledges ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Someone 
like Justice John Paul Stevens.

                          ____________________