Justice John Paul Stevens’ point of view

Here’s a look at some opinions by Justice John Paul Stevens:

Texas vs. Johnson (1989)

Stevens dissented from the majority in a case that lifted prohibitions on flag burning.

“The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for -- and our history demonstrates that they are -- it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration.�

Bush vs. Gore (2000)

Stevens dissented from the majority in a decision concerning the Florida recounts in the 2000 presidential election.

“Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. 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.�

Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld (2006)

Stevens wrote the majority decision that held that the military tribunals set up to try terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were illegal.

“The court’s duty, in both peace and war, [is] to preserve the constitutional safeguards of civil liberty. . . . The government has identified no countervailing interest that would permit federal courts to depart from their general duty to exercise the jurisdiction Congress has conferred on them.�

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Stevens dissented from the majority, which ruled that corporations could spend as much as they wanted to sway voters in federal elections.

“At bottom, the court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.�