Five Chiefs by John Paul Stevens

Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir by John Paul Stevens

When I first heard that John Paul Stevens was writing a memoir that coved his life’s intersection with the Supreme Court of the United States, I was very excited. He was one of my favorite justices, due to his somewhat liberal bent. Liberal in that the rest of the Court had moved so far to the right that a moderate conservative is now seen as a “liberal”.

What a fantastic book. Stevens gives insight into his judicial philosophy and what has transpired during the tenures of the last five Chief Justices. He briefly touches on the twelve Chiefs who preceded his time with the Court. Interestingly, his five greatest Chiefs all were before he became acquainted with the Court. They were John Jay (1st Chief), John Marshall (4th and his favorite), William Howard Taft, Charles Evans Hughes and Harlan F. Stone.

Stevens also gives a rare insider view of the mechanics of the Court, regarding personal interactions, filing systems, discussions and some non-judicial activities. For anyone interested in important cases that concern our Constitution or juris prudence since our Founding as a nation, you really want to read this book. I’d really hate to give away the cool things he tells us about the more mundane things that happen behind closed doors, but suffice it to say, working at Joe’s Bar is never a dull day!

The five Chiefs he covers are Fred Vinson, Earl Warren, Warren Berger, William Rehnquist and John Roberts, Jr. Stevens was a clerk to Justice Wiley Rutledge during Vinson’s term as Chief. He was a private attorney during Warren’s term and then a justice during the remaining three Chiefs time at the Court. He seems to have the most distaste for Rehnquist (as do I) as far as his approach to liberty, the death penalty, states rights and his personal arrogance (e.g. decorating the Chiefs robes differently than the other justices on the Court).

My greatest distaste with the book in not in what it covers but in Stevens takes on judicial pay. He claims that judges, especially at the federal level, aren’t paid enough. I’ve heard this argument and thought it convincing when I’ve read it in other places. Stevens, however, really destroys its veracity for me. He says that he had to sell his summer home, that he flew to on the plane he owned, because he couldn’t afford it as a judge. His friend on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals also had to sell his second home when he was appointed. Excuse me but WTF! Stevens and his ilk must have no comprehension of fairness if they believe owning multiple homes and private planes is something their salary should cover when the great masses of this country don’t have their own homes or much money.

Overall, this book was an excellent read by a mostly excellent justice. His thoughts on the death penalty, states rights and how the Constituion is a living document are worth the price of admission. As he says near the end, history “provides an insufficient guide to the meaning of our Constituion.” Justice John Paul’s Stevens memoir of his time interacting with the Court is part history, part analysis and part “user’s guide” to our Nation.