Justice Unbound

[mgc1961]

Watching the post-retirement emergence of Justice John Paul Stevens is almost enough to make me a fan of term limits for Supreme Court justices.

Not to be misunderstood — I’m not suggesting that Justice Stevens should have ended his 35-year Supreme Court career a moment sooner than he did. But his new role as public truth-teller, not to say as aging rock star — posing in Wrigley Field’s empty bleachers for the benefit of the “60 Minutes” cameras and pointing to where, at the age of 12, he saw Babe Ruth hit his famous “called shot” home run in the 1932 World Series — makes me think what a great public resource Supreme Court justices can be if they retire with the appetite for living a public life and the vitality to do it.

Not so long ago, it was typical for justices to remain on the court until they died (the exit strategy of 49 of the 103 justices not currently serving) or became enfeebled by age (recall the explanation that Justice Thurgood Marshall gave when he retired in 1991 at the age of 83: “I’m old and falling apart.”) I can’t remember when the country was blessed by the presence of three retired justices who can get themselves from one place to another unaided.

Justice Stevens, a force of nature, still plays tennis and golf at 90. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who left the bench five years ago at 75, basically lives on airplanes, traveling the country in support of her causes, judicial reform in the states and civics education in the schools. Even Justice David H. Souter, who retired last year at 69 to reclaim a quiet life in his native New Hampshire, keeps remodeled chambers in the federal courthouse in Boston and made a cameo appearance last Sunday on “60 Minutes” to talk about Justice Stevens. Justice Souter once vowed publicly that cameras would roll into the Supreme Court’s courtroom only over his dead body, and I could scarcely have been more surprised to find him on network television than if he had sprouted wings.

Don't miss the rest of this article at http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/justice-unbound/?hp

Souter, referring to the Framers’ original understanding of the Constitution argument: "a “simplistic” method for interpreting the Constitution." Dude!

[Tippy]

1. K&R...Interesting article.... thanks