The Making of a Justice: Reflections on My First 94 Years

by John Paul Stevens

A "timely and hugely important" memoir of Justice John Paul Stevens's life on the Supreme Court ( New York Times ).




When Justice John Paul Stevens retired from the Supreme Court of the United States in 2010, he left a legacy of service unequaled in the history of the Court. During his thirty-four-year tenure, Justice Stevens was a prolific writer, authoring more than 1000 opinions. In The Making of a Justice , he recounts his extraordinary life, offering an intimate and illuminating account of his service on the nation's highest court.




Appointed by President Gerald Ford and eventually retiring during President Obama's first term, Justice Stevens has been witness to, and an integral part of, landmark changes in American society during some of the most important Supreme Court decisions over the last four decades. With stories of growing up in Chicago, his work as a naval traffic analyst at Pearl Harbor during World War II, and his early days in private practice, The Making of a Justice is a warm and fascinating account of Justice Stevens's unique and transformative American life.

Genres: Law, Nonfiction, Politics, History, Biography, Biography Memoir, Memoir

560 pages, Hardcover

First published May 14, 2019

About the author

John Paul Stevens, J.D. (Northwestern University School of Law, 1945; B.A., English, University of Chicago, 1941), served as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 1970–1975. President Gerald R. Ford nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat December 19, 1975. Justice Stevens retired from the Supreme Court on June 29, 2010.

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

As I mentioned in a recent review of another book, I love discussion of constitutional documents, particularly through the lens of the courts and its interpretation of the document. Discussions of the U.S. Constitution seems easiest for me to access, so I am subjected to a great deal of discussion on this matter, though my native Canadian one is equally captivating. Of even more interest is when a legal memoir surfaces, using one of the key constitutional actors, which discusses many of these constitutional interpretations. This piece, a legal/judicial memoir by former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) John Paul Stevens, was stellar in its approach to that subject, as well as tackling some of the author’s biographical information during the first ninety-four years of his life. As of this writing, Justice Stevens is still around, set to turn 99 and still as strong-minded as ever, holding the title of third longer serving justice on SCOTUS. Below are some brief summaries of items found in this tome, whose volume is deceptively long, with well over half being endnotes (a good sign for those who want to learn more).

Justice Stevens opens the book with some interesting backstory about his life in and around Chicago. He discusses the Stevens ancestry and name in Illinois, showing how the Christian Scientist beliefs of his mother and business sense of his father helped shape him into a well-rounded young man with a thirst to learn. Stevens majored in English before making his way to law school, where he developed a passion for the law, particularly all things anti-trust. Working both in the public and private spheres, Stevens was able to see how the law and its pitfalls worked in a practical sense, ironing out the wrinkles when needed. He mentions his time in the Navy during the Second World War, as a codebreaker, and the excitement he had working to crack the Japanese Army’s transmissions. The reader also learns of his early political dealings, including attending some of the Republican events in and around Chicago, at a time when politicians tended to speak on the issues and not utilise ‘foreign mud’ to sling at others. His legal work brought him to the attention of those in the Nixon Administration and Stevens was given the chance to sit on the bench of the US Court of Appeals, where he developed his passion for hearing cases and writing opinions than would show his attentiveness and eagerness to explore avenues of the law. Stevens discusses some interesting developments that saw him be asked by President Ford to serve as an Associate Justice of SCOTUS, where the fun really began, and much of the tome takes off.

Stevens tackles his time on the Court in a thorough and yet highly digestible manner. He makes it clear that he was honoured to serve, but also does not hold back in his frank discussion of events. Having served for close to thirty-five years, Stevens has a great deal to say on many topics and uses this soapbox to explore many interesting cases. Stevens tackles some of the interesting aspects of constitutional law throughout his discussions, pertaining especially to personal liberties in the realm of abortion, sexual orientation, free speech, and gender equality. The reader will find many discussions throughout the years on the bench, with many specific cases coming to the forefront. I would be remiss not to mention his swipes at Justice Scalia as they relate to the Second Amendment (gun ownership) throughout the latter portion of the piece, when the topic came back to the Court and had some shocking reinterpretation that favoured a wider interpretation of this controversial part of the constitution. I leave it to the reader to decide how they feel! Stevens also tackles frank commentaries on his fellow Justices—not pulling any punches about how he disagreed with some on their legal views and others on the inability to work effectively on the team—which serves to enrich the read, rather than take away from it. Stevens pulls on the memories of his past legal clerks and offers up detailed discussions of cases, decisions, and even judicial conferences where Justices bantered about the merits of certain legal arguments. His long time on the Court offers readers a rich and very varied view of events over a significant amount of time, as legal standards changed based on the other eight sitting alongside him. Stevens surely made some great friends on the Court, though he never sold out. He was, in my opinion, one of the Justices who looked at the law and not the president who appointed him to make decisions. Many of those on the Court today could take a page out of his book, where each decision drips with ideology that ‘trumps’ what would appear to be central constitutional tenets and precedent by the Court, grounded in strong arguments. Anyone looking for a stellar analysis of the law, particularly from on high need look no further than this piece, which is full of wonderful discussions and frank commentary. I will be looking for his other work to complement my reading of this stellar judicial memoir. Recommended for those with a passion for constitutional discussion and the reader with an interest in legal issues. It is not as long as it looks, as long as the reader is not one to get lost in the minutiae of endnotes and citations.

There is no doubt that this book will not appeal to everyone, even those who love biographical pieces. Justice Stevens does spend some time giving his background, which includes wonderful stories from his youth and adulthood that will be of much interest to some readers. I was quite enthralled with learning all he had to say, specifically his time in the Navy and the war effort he undertook. Admittedly, there is little talk of his own family, with only passing mention of his first wife and children, and a little more about his current wife. I understand this is a legal memoir, though by adding the backstory from the early chapters, I would have hoped to learn more about his children and any anecdotes of their growing up before Stevens ascended to the bench. Perhaps a ‘first volume’ could have been used to discuss this backstory in more detail, though I cannot critique Stevens for his approach to his own life! Stevens uses the bulk of the book to explore his time on the Court, but chooses to lay things out in an interesting manner. He argues that the Court is less a product of its Chief Justice—the way in which many refer to the Court—and more of the newest Justice that has been appointed. Therefore, he includes chapter titles that refer to the ‘X Court’, where the variable is the newest appointee to SCOTUS. Additionally, he breaks down each annual Court sitting, beginning on the first Monday in October, in which he discusses key cases, rulings, and historical happenings from that period. This juxtaposition of events on an annual basis allows the reader to better see the influences of events and how cases developed over the years, based on the actors involved. While the early chapters are quite short, these latter section breaks are much longer and more detailed, something legal keeners such as myself are sure to enjoy. Stevens offers up so much information that even the more dedicated constitutional fan will likely need to take a breather from time to time. The narrative does, at times, get a little technical and ‘deep’, but when it comes to discussing Court decisions, it is sometimes hard to water things down too much, with the specifics under exploration. Overall, this is surely one of the better memoirs I have read in a long time, specifically due to its frank and detailed (in the latter portion) nature.

Kudos, Justice Stevens, for a stellar memoir that held my attention throughout. I did learn a great deal over your decades on the Court and am eager to ready your other publications to learn a little more.

Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/

A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

[Trish · Rating 5 out of 5]

Justice John Paul Stevens appears to me to be one of those old-timey conservatives, the kind whose judgment I may not agree with but whose opinions I can respect. It’s been awhile since I’ve seen such clear thinking on the part of anyone who calls themselves Republican.

Stevens served on the Supreme Court thirty-four years, from 1975-2010. He did an awful lot of deciding in all that time; what I notice most is that these decisions, or at least the ones he discusses in detail, are ones that made a big difference in the life of ordinary Americans. We all knew the Supreme Court was important, but how quickly the perception of partisanship has begun to erode their power.

Stevens names time periods in the court for the newest member because that individual alters the balance of power. He discusses important decisions each new justice has authored that might be considered to define that justice’s body of work and places his own assents or dissents beside them.

One of the earliest discussions he wades into is the abortion debate. Stevens was seated two years after Roe v. Wade and says at the time the decision had no appearance of being controversial.

Criticism of Roe became more widespread perhaps in part because opponents repeatedly make the incorrect argument that only a “right to privacy,” unmentioned in the Constitution, supported the holding. Correctly basing a woman’s right to have an abortion in "liberty" rather than “privacy" should undercut that criticism.

Just so.

The 2003 case involving a challenge to the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s 2002 congressional districting map, Vieth v. Jubelirer, is close to my heart. Hearing Stevens articulate why deciding partisan gerrymanders are not a heavy lift gives succor to like-minded in light of the devastation of a final refusal by SCOTUS to hear any more such cases.

Why is it any more difficult than deciding a racial gerrymander, he asks. Why can’t the Court stipulate every district boundary have a neutral justification? There are no lack of judicially manageable standards; there is a lack “judicial will to condemn even the most blatant violations of a state legislature’s fundamental duty to govern impartially.”

Stevens remained puzzled by his failure to convince his colleagues on the Court of his argument, an early echo of Justice Kagan’s distress this year that the blatant partisanship of the Court has broken out into the open and split the harmony with which they argued for so many years.

Stevens does not leave out decisions he wrote that were disliked by the country. Time never disguised the ugly truth that in Kelo v. The City of New London , a multinational pharmaceutical corporation looking around for a new development used the notion of eminent domain to take the homes of two long-time residents of New London, and then, within five years, closed up shop and left town. “…the Kelo majority opinion was rightly consistent with the Supreme Court’s precedent and the Constitution’s text and structure [but] Whether the decision represented sound policy is another matter.”

After the Citizen’s United decision with which he disagreed, Stevens tendered his resignation.

“…it is perfectly clear that if the identity of a speaker cannot provide the basis for regulating his (or its) speech, the majority’s rationale in Citizen’s United would protect not only the foreign shareholders of corporate donors to political campaigns but also foreign corporate donors themselves.”

By hardly ever mentioning fellow Justice Sam Alito Stevens shows his animus. After this decision, Stevens describes Alito sitting in the audience during Obama’s State of the Union. When Obama mentioned that the decision allows foreign corporations to have a say in American elections, Stevens writes Alito “incorrectly” mouthed the words: “Not true.”

He revisits Alito’s record later, when he is wrapping up, to point out “especially striking” disagreements he had with him over interpretation of the Second Amendment. “Heller is unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Court announced during my tenure on the bench,” he says. [Alito] failed to appreciate the more limited relationship between gun ownership and liberty. Firearms, Stevens argues, “have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty.”

It probably wasn’t the Citizen’s United decision itself that brought the Stevens reign to an end; he may have had a small stroke after the pressures of that January decision and then playing a game a tennis. He was replaced by Elena Kagan, with whom he has professed to be delighted. Stevens didn’t so much change as a large portion of the country who once, and still do, call themselves Republicans moved to the right. Stevens never did and he was right where we needed him for thirty-four years.

[Jean · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Paul Stevens (1920---) was appointed to the Supreme Court by Gerald R. Ford (1913-2006) in 1975. In his many years on the Court, Justice Stevens transcended the party ideology to work on issues with all the Justices. Justice Stevens tells of his early life, but the majority of the book is about key issues ruled on by the Court over the past thirty-five years. He includes legal cases he voted for or dissented on. The newest Justice on the Court in this book is Elena Kagan who replaced John Paul Stevens. Stevens spoke very highly of Kagan.

The book is well written and researched. I have been fascinated by the Supreme Court for a number of years. I found the personal information about the history and his views on various controversial decisions of the Count most interesting. I noted Justice Stevens did not pull his punches regarding Justices Scalia and Thomas regarding originalism and textualism. He also discussed his various friendships on the Court. Justice Stevens did not speak down to the layman. As Justice Stevens is ninety-nine years old, this most likely will be his last book.

I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is eighteen hours and thirty-one minutes. Robert Petkoff did a good job narrating the book. Petkoff is an actor/signer and a voice-over artist as well as an audiobook narrator. He was nominated for a Tony Award.

[Lorna · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Making of a Justice: Reflections on My First 94 Years was a lovely book. This beautiful man, Justice John Paul Stevens, has witnessed so much American history as he sat on the United States Supreme Court for thirty-four years as one of our most beloved jurists. Justice Stevens was appointed to the court by President Gerald Ford and resigned during President Barack Obama's first term in office.

Justice Stevens chose to organize his memoir of his time on the Supreme Court according to a saying by Justice Byron White, that each time a justice joins the Court, it creates a new dynamic and a different institution, a new Court. Within that premise, Justice Stevens reflects on his thirty-four years as an associate justice, discussing notable cases and reflections of each of those eleven Courts of his tenure, i.e., the Stevens court; the O'Connor court; the Scalia court; the Kennedy court; the Souter court; the Thomas court; the Ginsburg court, the Breyer court; the Roberts and Alito courts; the Sotomayor court; and the Kagan court. I must say that I loved his personal connections to all of this history and his views on some controversial decisions of the Supreme Court. In the shadow of cases like Bush v. Gore and the infamous Citizens United decision, Justice Stevens gives a lot of insight. At the end of the day, I must thank the Justice for his service and say that his measured voice is missed. Besides, a photograph with his bow tie and lovely smile, and I am comforted.

[Ms.pegasus · Rating 5 out of 5]

The late Justice John Paul Stevens, for all his scholarly gravity, had a subtle wit. In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 2000 he rebutted the school district's claim that prayer preceding all of its football games “solemnized” the event. He noted: “Apart from the pre-game ceremony itself — which in other athletic contests is traditionally 'solemnized' by our National Anthem — solemnity is not a normal characteristic of competitive sporting events. It is true, of course, that things can become pretty solemn for the student body if its team loses game after game, but the Santa Fe policy mandates pre-game solemnity for the entire season no matter how exhilarating the team's winning streak might become for the fans.” (p.354) A footnote which Justice Ginsburg persuaded him to delete from his opinion poked more fun at the notion of “solemnity,” using his alma mater Northwestern University's football team as an example.

Intermittent flashes of his personality enliven this autobiography of Stevens' 35 year career on the Supreme Court. It is a narrative dense with technical analysis of due process, affirmative action, freedom of speech, anti-abortion measures, capital punishment, environmental regulation and gun control laws that continue to be subjects of controversy. These issues are explored in the context of the cases he heard over his lifetime.

Stevens' beliefs were shaped by a wide spectrum of experiences. He served in naval intelligence during World War II. He clerked for Supreme Court justice Wiley Rutledge. He practiced law both with a prominent Chicago firm and with his own 3-person partnership. His specialty was anti-trust law. His practice included pro bono cases. He also had teaching stints at both Northwestern University and the University of Chicago.

His Chicago roots reconnected me with many names from the past: the Charles A. Stevens department store (where I used to get my hair cut), Cuneo Press, Hawthorn Melody Farms (the destination of many school field trips), and Senator Chuck Percy, who was instrumental to his appointment to the Seventh Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.

This book is not for the faint of heart. It is written with dense passages of negative and double negative constructions and attempts to explain such concepts of the “Rule of Reason” in relation to the Sherman Act (p.163), the scope and application of “sovereign immunity,” and the differences between substantive and procedural due process. I freely admit I was out of my depth in these discussions. No doubt they will be highly informative to students of law.

Stevens joined in and wrote many dissents during his tenure. He notes with quiet satisfaction that many of his arguments were subsequently validated. Examples include Congress' enactment of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978), a reaction to the decision in General Electric v. Gilbert (1976); the Boy Scouts of America lifting of its anti-gay rule fifteen years after the decision in BSA v. Dale (2000); and the repudiation of Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) which upheld Georgia's criminalization of sodomy.

Stevens held fast to a number of beliefs throughout his career. He frequently states that where there was a violation of a right a remedy must be available. The chance of error made him a lifelong opponent of capital punishment. Similarly, he believed that the Constitutional proscription against “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited excessive or disproportionate punishments, an argument he employed against several mandatory sentencing cases. He believed that the historical context and intent of legislation should factor into an interpretation of the law.

Stevens is scrupulously gracious toward all of his former colleagues and maintained cordial relations with his many former clerks. It is only during his later years that his writing reflects a growing frustration with the reasoning of what became majority opinions. Regarding Bush v. Gore (2000): “I remain of the view that the Court has not fully recovered from the damage it inflicted on itself in Bush v. Gore.” (p.374) On the theory of textual analysis: “I remain of the view I expressed in Circuit City Stores [v. Adams 2001] that '[a] method of statutory interpretation that is deliberately uninformed, and hence unconstrained, may produce a result that is consistent with a court's own views of how things should be, but it may also defeat the very purpose for which a provision was enacted.'” (p.378) On gun control: “Heller [District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008] is unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Court announced during my tenure on the bench.” (p.482) His dissent in Citizens United v. FEC, 2010 is presaged in his concurring opinion in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000): “I made 'one simple point. Money is property; it is not speech.'” (p.351)

Although this book was published in 2019, Stevens ends his autobiography in 2014, the year of his 94th birthday. He concludes it with a congratulatory letter from President Barack Obama. The letter is a fitting tribute to a careful thinker who had the profoundest respect for the standard of an independent judiciary and the governmental principle of a balance of powers.

[Joan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had to return and get back on the wait list before I was able to finish this. I’m going to have to get some of the other titles Justice Stevens wrote.
This title went through his career on the bench, primarily the Supreme Court, mostly year by year, and he discussed the most important cases of that term. If I were dean of a law school, I’d make this mandatory reading. I’d say one of his major comments and themes was how he feels the Second Amendment has been grotesquely perverted over the decades. In his first comments he wrote the following:

In 1792, less than a year after adopting the Second Amendment, Congress did pass a statute that sheds some light on its understanding of how the Second Amendment was expected to protect the “well-regulated Militia” mentioned in its preamble....That statute quite clearly identifies the type of weapon with which the members of a well-regulated Militia were being armed. Consistent with the text of the Second Amendment, it does not mention weapons of self-defense such as handguns. Pp 257-258.

The other notable theme is his disdain for the conservative methodology of looking at original sources for the original meaning of laws, as represented by Justice Scalia’s work. He points out how this can be easily warped to suit the writer’s bias as opposed to his method of researching the relevant cases to discover what has been the past and current history of how laws were meant to work by Congress. I certainly find his method more likely to discern what was meant by the laws impacting a case under discussion.
Finally, many are aware of his opinion that the very real risk of executing an innocent person means the death penalty is an unwise idea.

I found it very humanizing that he couldn’t resist ending the book with the high praise President Ford, who had nominated him to the Supreme Court, wrote on the 30th anniversary of his elevation to the Court.

We lost a humane person of high intellect and high moral standards when Justice Stevens died earlier this year. I hope we see his like in the near future.
This book is highly recommended if you have an interest in the law and how the Supreme Court works. But only if you have a deep interest since it is over 500 pages!!!

[Grace Hoffmann · Rating 1 out of 5]

I rarely skim and never give up once I've started, but I clearly didn't understand what I was getting into with this book. I am interested in Justice Stevens because I am a lawyer and we attended the same law school, and he is about my dad's age. So I was interested to know more about his life. That is not what this book is about. It is a laundry list of important cases, term by term (!) from his long tenure on the Supreme Court. Including his after the fact criticisms of the majority decisions and promoting his own many dissents (and then telling us when they were cited in later decisions). I guess if you were super interested in Supreme Court jurisprudence, you might enjoy this book, but I found it a very long slog. Particularly annoying was his revisitation of Bush v Gore. His personality does come through, I guess. His account of his early life and war time service was very interesting! I wish he'd written more about his actual life and less about the (many) cases that didn't go his way.

[anna · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love this book, but it is certainly not for everyone. Justice Stevens leads readers through personal aspects of his life very briefly and with no depth and then gets into the real meat of the book - an overview/reflection/commentary of the important/interesting decisions issued by the Supreme Court during his tenure. It may take time for some readers to adjust to the attorney style of writing (for example, thinking through a vote to affirm a lower court decision to uphold the constitutionality of a statute prohibiting a certain act), but I found it deeply satisfying. (Some readers may never adjust to this style of writing.) It's interesting to read Justice Stevens opinionated commentary - calling into question certain decisions, articulating why certain legal issues (constitutionality of the death penalty, the constitutional argument regarding guns) became so clear to him. I love that he identified throwing out the first pitch of a Chicago Cubs game as "unquestionably the high point of my career."

[Dustin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall, I’m glad I read this. But it was a slog! Early on, he mentioned including several details and stories in part because he thought close friends and grandchildren might enjoy them. While I understand the temptation, as I am not a Supreme Court or John Paul Stevens superfan, not everything landed with me. If you’ve been following the Supreme Court since 1975 and want lots of details from Stevens’ perspective, this is for you. If you’re only moderately interested, I’d spend your time elsewhere.

I especially appreciated Stevens’ perspective on the death penalty (wanting to abolish the practice) and positions on various abortion cases. Also nice to hear about friendships across ideological divides. Voting nemesis but close friend Antonin Scalia plays a large role.

Stevens falls into the trap of repeating “greatest,” “worst,” “most important,” etc. in reference to court cases he was a part of. It seems more thorough editing would have cleaned that up.

[sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

so many supreme court cases :/

[Sue · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book has pluses and minuses. In no particular order of importance, my thoughts ..... 1) I was disappointed that he didn’t write more about his family. The first ~third of the book is autobiographical pre-USSC, and it was VERY interesting. But there’s scarce mention of his first wife (they were married for over 30 years and she was the mother of his 4 kids), sparse mention of his children (2 of whom sadly died in middle age), and loving but not terribly substantive mention of his second wife (who preceded him in death by 4 years). He clearly experienced grief late in life, and a divorce/remarriage in late midlife, some of which I imagine is difficult to talk about, but I think those experiences would be highly relevant to the premise of his book. Thus, I was disappointed he left them out. 2) The book is simply too long. Once he’s on the USSC, each chapter is devoted to a court term which, given that he’s the longest serving USSC Justice, ends up meaning the book sags under its own weight. He devotes too much time to reviewing less important cases, which adds unnecessary bulk to the book. 3) I greatly enjoyed his behind-the-scenes snippets of how things get done/decided on the USSC. This aspect of the book was fascinating. I wish there were more of it in the book. 4) He reminds us that members of the USSC with differing approaches to the law more often than not agree with each other. He also showed very high regard for the intellect and reasoning of those justices (minus one—more on that in a minute), but in the book he didn’t spare anyone of his criticism (which could be biting) when he disagreed with them on an issue/approach. 5) News to me: JPS seems to have no lost love for Samuel Alito. My first hint was when he praised Harriet Meiers and said she would have made a fine SC Justice. Once Meiers withdrew and Alito was on the Court, JPS on multiple instances in the book went out of his way to point out instances where he disagreed with Alito. He came across as very collegial in his writing about the other conservative justices. But where Alito was concerned it was a different story ..... at least that’s how I read between the lines. 6) I greatly appreciated the way he expressed, through multiple examples, his love for the rule of law and his common sense as evidenced by how he worked and the opinions he wrote. He was perfect for the job he had for so many years.

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

This massive tome really bombed for me and here's why: while I was hoping to get a greater insight into what made this great Supreme Court Justice tick as a human being, he basically skipped the 'good stuff.' The book is broken down into the many, many, terms of the Court on which Stevens sat and the major decisions in which he took part, his dissents and majority decisions, and sometimes just those instances when he joined a dissent or a majority and he was proud of a colleague.

In other words, we don't really get enough of the intimate details of his life. The book describes his time in high school and World Ward II but entirely skips his undergraduate years. Really kind of bizarre in a way. He speaks ABOUT being married to his first wife, but not how he courted her or how they fell out of love. He says very little about his children or the challenges of being a parent. In one sense, it is clear how he became a giant of the law -because he was obsessive about the law, but the book tells me nothing about how to approach life as a lawyer.

[Bill Pruitt · Rating 5 out of 5]

JPS has had a long and interesting life. The first part of his book details his early years in law and as an appeals court judge. I think he could have elaborated some more on these details especially his work in WWII.

Most of the book is JPS going through every one of his years on the Supreme Court. He highlights cases that he found compelling or important. In these discussions he often points out when the Court has done something he believes is wrong or lacking in support. It is these moments of truth that the book shines. It’s clear that JPS respected all of his colleagues but also calls them out when he disagrees. He spends a good deal of time on the Bush v. Gore decision and how he believes the Court inflicted a wound on itself by its actions. He also goes into detail about his decision in Kelo and the backlash it garnered.

You may not always agree with JPS opinions but it is hard to fault him for his sincerity and his explanations for how he reached his decisions.

[Daniel S. · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half of the book is an interesting account of John Paul Stevens's life through the time of his appointment to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the second half is just a collection of summaries of the many decisions rendered by the Court during his tenure. There is no thematic connection running through the cases he curated for his book nor much additional information about the internal decision-making process of the justices. If you're looking for a basic primer of Supreme Court decisions for the period of 1975 - 2010, this book is perfect. If you're like me and graduated from law school during the last decade of Justice Stevens's tenure, you're probably already familiar with the cases he describes.

[Peter Z. · Rating 1 out of 5]

I've read many of his opinions. If this book is even twice as good as those, it will still be great enough to line the bird cage.

[Super Creative Name · Rating 5 out of 5]

So I’ve seen some of the reviews for this book and they say that there are so many Supreme Court cases. Oh yes a book by a Supreme Court justice that features Supreme Court decisions what a surprise.

Anyway snark out of the way I think this book is a great summarization of legal reasoning and philosophy. I agree with Justice Stevens more than I did with Justice Gorsuch but as I said in my review of Justice Gorsuch’s book I think it is important to read things by people you don’t necessarily agree with. I don’t agree with Justice Stevens on everything but I think this book is a great explanation of his legal reasoning and his contribution to the constitution.

Long live Justice Stevens and I thank him for his contributions on and off the Supreme Court

[James E. · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was a big disappointment. I have long admired Justice Stevens but had to force myself to finish his book. I found three big shortcomings with it. First, there were glaring factual errors. For example, Jimmy Carter was elected president in 1976, NOT 1978. The baseball Hall of Fame player was Monte Irvin, NOT Monte Erwin. Second, the title leads one to believe this is an autobiography but it falls way short in this regard. For instance, he writes of his first wife working during World War II while he served in the Navy but the next mention of a spouse is not until he marries his second wife in 1979. What happened to the first wife? Did she die? Did they divorce? How did he meet his second wife? He doesn't provide any of this. At the end of the book he mentions his grandchildren but never discusses his children. How many did he have? When and where were they born? Did any of them go into the law? Again, he doesn't say. Third, the latter portion of the book is a rehash of some of the cases he decided while on the Supreme Court. He attempts to reargue the cases on which he dissented or say "I was right" on his majority decisions. He cites later sources who complimented him but none who disagree with him. He describes decisions he disagreed with as "specious" or "unwise" or "inconsistent." Decisions he wrote or concurred with are "cogent" or "powerful" or "persuasive" or "thoughtful." He comes across as an embittered old man who wants the last word or just to say "I told you so." I expected so much more from Justice Stevens, a man whom I had previously greatly respected.

[Chris Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

The news of Justice John Paul Stevens passing in July inspired me to pick up this memoir and see what nuggets I could glean from it. I enjoyed learning about Justice Stevens' military experience and his clerkship. As a solo practitioner, I respected his ability to put his law practice in the place of launching his long and illustrious career as a jurist. Much of the book is devoted to summarizing a handful of events and cases that were decided in each term that he served on the Supreme Court, a total of thirty-five years.

This was not an easy read. The writing style mimics a Supreme Court opinion with frequent run-on sentences and interlocking qualifiers. Nevertheless, Justice Stevens developed a unique skill at making his thoughts known while never debasing the character of those he thought made the wrong decisions.

Such a talent would certainly be necessary in the halls of One First Street. The memoir format seems to be his chance to justify himself again in the opinions that he wrote, and he mentions his several regrets at being unable to persuade other justices to see things his way. At the age of 90, he retired from the Court and it may be decades before the Court sees another jurist of his caliber.

[Tom Bantle · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first quarter of the book is about what Justice Stevens did before he was appointed to the Supreme Court; it is of general interest, particularly his work on Japanese codes during World War II.

The rest of the book is a rather exhaustive discussion of virtually every Supreme Court case in which he wrote the Court's decision or his own concurrence or dissent. This portion of the book is of most interest to attorneys and/or historians of the Court. It demonstrates the varied nature of Supreme Court cases and the various ways the various justices approach the law.

While Justice Stevens says that he personally got along with every Justice, it is clear that his judicial outlook was very different particularly from Nino Scalia's. The cases he truly believes were decidedly incorrectly are not surprising: Bush v. Gore, District of Columbia v. Heller. Stevens' description of the decisionmaking in these cases strengthens my cynical "judicial realism" view, that the political mindset of the Justices overrides any true legal concepts such as "stare decisis" or "judicial modesty" when cases are decided. In other words, there is a political end that they pretend to justify, rather following true judicial precepts.

[Bill Sleeman · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a wonderful book for Supreme Court junkies. The late Justice John Paul Stevens is charming, witty and well versed, as readers might imagine, with the topics he covers. He offers stories of Supreme Court life and many of the individuals that have occupied the bench during his lifetime with such warmth and genuine affection that even when you know he disagrees with a decision of his colleagues you cannot help but admire how he takes his wins and losses with grace. There are a few instances in later Court terms when there is a sense that Justice Stevens laments some of the paths taken (and not taken) but readers will conclude this book with a sense that despite that Justice Stevens lived his life and his choices without regrets. A model life in many ways.

[Dan Cotter · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a great telling of the amazing life so far of Justice John Paul Stevens. In it, not a word of negativity in it. Also, not a great deal of gossip or personal story telling about fellow justices in here. JPS addresses each year of his 34 on the Supreme Court and some key decisions. For those not SCOTUS junkies, it might be a bit difficult to navigate through and digest, but as has been noted in some other reviews, it is worth it. There are many nuggets of wisdom that today's Supreme Court can glean from Stevens. Worthy addition to the SCOTUS shelves.

[Mike Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a difficult book to read, but worth the time. Stevens begins with a brief autobiography of his early years, then quickly begins a chronological listing of the significant legal cases in which he was involved both as an attorney and Supreme Court Justice. The book contains some long, legal sentences and terminology. On those cases in which Stevens dissented, he carefully explains his logic and reasons. It is, in essence, an examination of the process of Supreme Court thinking and law making.

[Michael Asen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I only gave this as much as three stars because I love who John Paul Stevens was. I had read his biography "An Independent Life "years ago and loved it. There was very little in this book that revealed much about the man. It was an interesting reflection of the cases he worked on both before he was a judge and after. I thought the writing was bland enough to only rate two stars but he gets an extra star for being a great Supreme Court Justice.

[Terry Earley · Rating 2 out of 5]

I will admit that I got so bogged down in the legal details of cases, etc. that I did not get past the first 150 pages.

Now that he is gone from us, we can rightly honor his influence and example of what a great legal mind can do for our country. With the Supreme Court turning more partisan, we will miss his even-handedness.

[Tomi]

This book started out interesting but as soon as Justice Stevens started talking about law, I got lost. I think you have to be a lawyer to understand his description of the cases and his opinions on them. I won this book on Goodreads in exchange for an honest review - I'm sorry, but I am just not legal-minded enough for it.

[Linda Smatzny · Rating 3 out of 5]

Perfect for lawyers and people interested in the Supreme Court. The book contains pictures. Forgot to mention when this was posted earlier that I received this book for free from the Goodreads First Reads program.

[Hapzydeco · Rating 3 out of 5]

Justice John Paul Stevens' autobiography expresses his love and respect for the Constitution. Plus, his increasing concern for the traditions and public esteem of the Supreme Court.

[Allie]

Wow what a life and brilliant mind. I bet he will make it another 94 years !

[Mary · Rating 3 out of 5]

Traces each year of his work on the court explaining which cases were important and why.

[Tim Curran · Rating 3 out of 5]

In my opinion this is not a general interest book for non-lawyers (like me). Too much legalese for me but I still enjoyed what I could get through.