Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir by retired associate justice of the Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, is not your typical memoir or autobiography. While it can hardly be called "comprehensive," since it provides a narrow view of Justice Stevens' life, the book is still chock full of wisdom, wit, and insight.
I have always admired Justice Stevens' mastery of the plain English language while he was on the bench and this book is a fine example. While some may be wary about reading a book by a Supreme Court justice for fear that they might not understand it, this book is written in a clear, eloquent and at times folksy language. The only parts that may pose slight problems to the reader is when Justice Stevens discusses a complex case or constitutional issue in little more than a paragraph or two. However, these should not detract from your enjoyment of the book because they serve more as anecdotes rather than central plot points. Furthermore, Justice Stevens includes a copy of the Constitution in the appendix to the book so that those who are not familiar with the part of the Constitution he sometimes quotes may look it up for themselves.
In addition to the language being easily readable and enjoyable, the book is also well organized. The book begins with an introduction to the book that like a good legal opinion serves as a road map for the book.
Next, Justice Stevens discusses the 12 previous chief justices that he had no interactions with. As he discusses, the first he interacted with was the 13th Chief Justice, Fred Vinson, who was the chief when he was a law clerk to Justice Wiley Rutledge. This part is very interesting as Justice Stevens opines on the strengths and weaknesses of the prior chief justices and covers two or three of the significant opinions during their terms. While the discussion of the opinions themselves might be difficult to follow for those without any knowledge of the cases, the important thing to remember is that the cases themselves don't matter as much the chief's role in that case. After his discussion of the prior 12 chiefs, Justice Stevens inexplicably states that the 5 greatest in his opinion are "John Jay, John Marshall, William Howard Taft, Charles Evans Hughes, and Harlan Fiske Stone." Although he discusses these 5, he gives little hint how he feels about them until at the very end of the chapter.
The third chapter discusses the importance and the role of the chief justice. This, coupled with the second chapter, provides a good overview of the position as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which goes well beyond merely hearing cases and writing opinions.
CHIEF JUSTICE FRED VINSON
The first chief that Justice Stevens discusses in any great length is Chief Justice Fred Vinson, whom Justice Stevens observed while clerking for Justice Rutledge in 1947. This chapter is most interesting, not for its discussion of the chief justice, but for its description of how the Supreme Court's processes have changed. For example, in 1947 the Court heard arguments 5 days a week instead of 3, arguments started at noon instead of 10am, and the method of discussing cases and writing opinions was different. It appears that Justice Stevens did not think very highly of Chief Justice Vinson, at least not compared to the justice he worked for or the other justices on the bench at the time (which included some of the greatest justices ever - Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, and Robert Jackson).
CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN
Next Justice Stevens discusses Chief Justice Earl Warren who was rapidly selected by President Eisenhower. (This was a selection that he was famously quoted as "the biggest damned mistake I ever made." At the time Earl Warren was the most popular governor in the United States (governor of California) and a potential political rival). Eisenhower regretted his decision in part because of the expansive new liberties created by the Warren Court. Justice Stevens only interacted with Chief Justice Warren once when he argued before him in his one and only oral argument before the Supreme Court in an antitrust case. Somewhat humorously, Justice Stevens takes this opportunity to criticize Chief Justice Warren's antitrust jurisprudence remarking that he would not have received a good grade in an antitrust course. The most interesting part of the chapter is at the beginning when Justice Stevens questions whether a president may make a recess appointment of a Supreme Court justice (he thinks not) - a question which arises because Chief Justice Warren was actually initially a recess appointment and was not confirmed until nearly 6 months later...something I was never aware of.
In addition to discussing his appearance before the Warren Court, he also discusses other aspects of his life in private practice, such as what led him to start his own firm, and several of the major Warren Court decisions, such as Baker v. Carr, Miranda, and Brown v. Board of Education. His insights into these cases are quite interesting, particularly his approval of the Brown decision that "separate but equal" violates the Fourteenth Amendment along with his criticism of the Court's chosen timetable for ending school segregation - "with all deliberate speed." Although he criticizes Chief Justice Warren's approach to antitrust law, it is clear that Justice Stevens thinks very highly of Chief Justice Warren, and rightfully so.
CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN BURGER
The chapter on Chief Justice Warren Burger followed. I found this chapter most interesting for two reasons. First, Justice Stevens' recollections of Chief Justice Burger are much more sympathetic than the descriptions of Chief Justice Burger in Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong's The Brethren, which was mostly written before Justice Stevens joined the bench. While The Brethren makes Burger appear inept and conniving, Justice Stevens describes Burger as an advocate for improving the administration of justice throughout the United States and consistently sings his praises. That is not to say, however, that Justice Stevens does not criticize the chief justice for his shortcomings as well. He refers to some of these as the result of "self-inflicted wounds." Second, I had no idea that prior to Chief Justice Burger, advocates would get one hour each to argue instead of the 30 minutes they are given now.
Justice Stevens also discusses his brief tenure on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, his confirmation hearings, and his early tenure on the Supreme Court. There are several brief, but humorous stories about Justice Stevens' experience as the most junior justice that are worth reading and I do not want to ruin them here.
CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM REHNQUIST
The fourth chief justice that Justice Stevens writes about is the chief that Stevens served the longest with. Chief Justice Rehnquist was an associate justice for 14 years before being elevated to Chief Justice in 1986. As as a result of their long relationship, Justice Stevens writes with great admiration and fondness for Chief Justice Rehnquist. He writes that Chief Justice Rehnquist was the most efficient and impartial of the chiefs that he had known. While this chapter lacks the humor, wit, and anecdotes of the other chapters, it is a testament to the fact that, despite vast ideological differences in some areas of the law, the justices actually are very good friends with one another.
Conspicuously absent from this chapter (and the next) is any mention of Chief Justice Rehnquist's illness or death and his personal feelings about that. This would have been interesting to hear about since it likely substantially disrupted the work of the Court (not just because the Chief Justice passed away and Justice Stevens as the most senior justice had to perform his duties, but also because it left two seats empty with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor having stepped down earlier that term). Conspicuously present is that the chapter ends with Justice Stevens voicing his displeasure about Bush v. Gore with no mention of the role that the chief played in that case.
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS
The penultimate chapter is about the current chief justice, John Roberts. Justice Stevens' interactions with Chief Justice Roberts occurred while he was a member of the Supreme Court, but also while Roberts was an advocate before the Court arguing 39 cases in both private practice and on behalf of the government. Justice Stevens' sings his praises both as a lawyer (he was excellent) and as a chief justice (he is better than both Rehnquist and Burger).
In this chapter Justice Stevens' wit again shines through with stories such as moving into the retired chiefs chambers upon his first arrival at the court, "dissenting" from the decision to move furniture around the justices' conference room, and pondering whether Chief Justice Roberts and him had ever crossed paths when Roberts was a boy (they lived very close to one another before Justice Stevens was appointed to the Supreme Court).
However, like Burger, he does have some criticisms of Chief Justice Roberts' jurisprudence, this time with regards to the First Amendment. Justice Stevens criticizes his decisions in both the Citizen United case as well as the Snyder v. Phelps case (concerning a church's protest at a dead soldier's funeral). Justice Stevens essentially says that Chief Justice Roberts needs to go back and re-read the First Amendment and brush up on its distinctions.
Two other notes about this chapter. Much of the press around this book and Justice Stevens has focused on his lament that if he could take back any vote it would be a vote he made that upheld the death penalty.
Read more ›
