Rumors Swirl About Retirement of LGBT-Friendly Supreme Court Justice

by Michael Jones · 2009-09-03 06:50:00 UTC
Topics:

Justice John Paul Stevens

Journalist Shana Alexander had a quote that said "trying to stop a rumor is like trying to unring a bell."  If that's the case, then there must be a bell ringing somewhere near the U.S. Supreme Court building this morning, since rumors are swirling that Justice John Paul Stevens is gearing up for retirement.  If that's the case, then yet another advocate for equal rights will be departing the court.

Sure, Justice Stevens is approaching his 90th birthday, and his rumored retirement shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.  But on the heels of Justice David Souter's retirement earlier this year, it's certainly a reminder that the times - and the U.S. Supreme Court - are, to paraphrase Bob Dyle, a-changin'.

The rumors about Justice Stevens are swirling because as the Court finishes its selection of law clerks for next year, Justice Stevens has only hired one clerk.  So either that clerk is superhuman (Jean Grey from X-Men, Number 5 from Short Circuit?), or it's a sign that Justice Stevens is thinking about hanging up his robe.

Nobody will know for some time, it seems.  But the eventual departure of Justice Stevens will leave a hole in the Court when it comes to having a defender of equal rights.  Justice Stevens has long been a proponent of decriminalizing homosexuality, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should have invalidated laws prohibiting same-sex relations more than twenty years ago (it didn't until earlier this decade, in large part because of the leadership of Justice Stevens).  Justice Stevens also sided with the majority in Romer v. Evans, a 1996 Supreme Court case that struck down an illegal Colorado law which prevented municipalities from enacting anti-discrimination ordinances protecting LGBT people.

If rumors of his retirement end up being true - which again, won't be known for a while yet - it will mean that Justice Stevens won't be on the court for any future rulings challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  That's sad, because given his history, it's pretty clear that he would see DOMA for what it is - an unconstitutional, reactionary piece of legislation that discriminates against a big chunk of U.S. citizens.

Whenever the time comes, someone is going to have awfully big shoes to fill when Justice Stevens retires.

Michael Jones is a Change.org Editor. He has worked in the field of human rights communications for a decade, most recently for Harvard Law School.
PREVIOUS STORY:
The Terrorism of Homophobia
NEXT STORY:
Bullied high schooler convinces MPAA to change ‘Bully’ rating to “PG-13”

COMMENTS (3)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.