Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, a man of many accomplishments, comes across as a man of few regrets. The latter might be summed up in two words: Citizens United. His regrets over that controversial 5-4 decision, handed down just months before he left the Supreme Court, are strong, and many.
Stevens, who turned 95 in April, appeared recently at an event in Washington DC co-sponsored by the Alliance for Justice and George Washington University Law School. Introduced by AFJ President Nan Aron, Stevens was interviewed by Slate senior editor Dahlia Lithwick and Washington Post opinion writer Jonathan Capehart.
Stevens demurred on several issues such as the benefits or evils of social media and citizen journalists: "I'm not a good person to ask about that." But on most points he was crystal clear.
Regarding political candidates having "a litmus test" for potential Supreme Court nominees? Even as to Citizens United, "it's a bad idea. But the (Citizens United) case should be overruled." Throughout the interview Stevens referred to the case as bad for the country and the future, and damaging to the basic principles of democracy, "which should be 'one person, one vote' and not (decisions hinging) on a bunch of money."
Asked by Capehart why he had changed from the conservative he was considered when first named to the bench to his later identification as a liberal, Stevens said, "I didn't change, the Court changed." Every member appointed from 1981-91, he pointed out, was more conservative than his predecessor.
On electoral reform, another issue Stevens sees as imperative, he said "some things can be done at the state level. The right to contribute (to campaigns, etc) should have some geographical boundaries. Excessive photo IDs have never made sense."
Stevens, in response to a question from Lithwick about "bombast and aggressive, ideological arguments" in the Court, said that "ideology is not good. That's one reason I am against televising arguments, which would have an adverse impact on the deliberating process. I believe firmly in people knowing the institution, but not if it has an adverse effect on the institution itself." Possibly because some member might be a camera hog, Lithwick interposed? "Any one of the nine. And I would include myself."
Talking briefly about interactions among the justices, Stevens -- known to have had a close relationship with arch conservative Justice Antonin Scalia -- gave the impression that the Court does indeed function as intended. "I think John Roberts is a very good Chief Justice," he said. "He executes the duties of Chief Justice well, although I disagree with some of his decisions."
Stevens recalled stumbling over a few words while giving his dissent in Citizens United. "I said to myself, 'You're not as articulate as you were.' And that's when I stepped down."
Fielding questions five years later, the renowned Justice showed no problem articulating his thoughts. Including the need for electoral reform -- and the need to overturn Citizens United.