Wednesday Wisdom

John Paul Stevens was born on April 20, 1920, in Chicago into a well-known family that owned hotels. His early life was shaped by both privilege and adversity, his father was later convicted, and ultimately exonerated, in a financial scandal during the Great Depression. This was an experience that likely influenced Stevens’s lifelong sensitivity to fairness and due process.

He attended the University of Chicago, earning both his undergraduate and law degrees. At law school, he stood out academically, eventually clerking for Justice Wiley Rutledge, a formative experience that exposed him to the inner workings of the Supreme Court. During World War II, Stevens served in the U.S. Navy as a codebreaker in naval intelligence, contributing to operations in the Pacific theater. This role sharpened his analytical skills and discipline. After the war, Stevens returned to Chicago and built a reputation as a highly capable antitrust lawyer. He worked in private practice and became known for meticulous preparation, intellectual honesty and a non-ideological approach to legal problems.

His integrity and skill led to his appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 1970. In 1975, President Gerald Ford nominated Stevens to the Supreme Court of the United States, where he would serve until 2010, one of the longest tenures in history.

Stevens resisted rigid ideological labels. Though appointed by a Republican president, he evolved into a leading voice of the Court’s liberal wing but always made his decisions case by case. He was known for decision making based on facts and law, not political alignment and showed a willingness to change his views when persuaded. Stevens believed deeply that the Court should remain above politics. He often emphasized judicial restraint, respect for precedent and careful reasoning over sweeping rulings His opinions avoided flashy rhetoric and instead focused on clarity and logic.

2026- We need his civic lessons

Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law its meaning, its moral foundations, and its role in society. Stevens rejected rigid “originalism” and believed the Constitution must be interpreted in light of contemporary realities. He has said “The Constitution is not a static document; it must be applied in a changing world.” Many of his opinions stated that justice requires attention to real-world consequences, not just abstract doctrine.

After his retirement, Judge Stevens continued his interest in jurisprudence. His commitment to the United States and to the law brought him to the typewriter, authoring several books on how The Constitution could be amended to face modern realities. In his book Six Amendments; How and why we should change the Constitution, Stevens writes with precision on changes, often subtle, and on ways we could improve the rule of law and the country as a whole.

He starts the book establishing that the “Supremacy Clause” in Article 6 of the Constitution establishes that state officials must enforce Federal laws of the land as directed by the Constitution. He unravels the century old argument of states’ rights over federal laws seeking to amend article six believing the power and rule of law lies in the hands of congress over states. He argued against “Sovereign Immunity” writing “Neither the Tenth Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, nor any other provision of this Constitution, shall be construed to provide any state, state agency or state officer with immunity from liability for violating any act of Congress or any provisions of this Constitution. He evolved his thinking to oppose the death penalty arguing to add “such as the death penalty’ to the clause “nor cruel and unusual punishment”. Judge Stevens, in dissenting in DC vs Heller (5-4 vote) and in McDonald vs Chicago took on politically charged third rail of gun control. Emboldened and in response to the Sandy Hook Massacre argues for an addition to the Second Amendment. He writes as amended “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms “when serving in the Militia” shall not be infringed”. He believed this would not only allow for intelligent conversation on remedies for the ongoing national tragedy of gun violence but would bring the amendment back to the original intent of the framers.

Judge Stevens book was written in 2014, but he also addressed two prescient and salient points to amending the Constitution. In chapter 2, Judge Stevens focuses on partisan gerrymandering which is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries to entrench one party’s power. He called gerrymandering one of the most serious structural threats to American democracy because it allows politicians to choose their voters instead of voters choosing their representatives. Judge Stevens called for an amendment stating “Districts represented by members of congress, or by members of any state legislative body, shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory. The state shall have the burden to justifying any departures from this requirement by reference to neutral criteria such as natural, political, or historic boundaries or demographic changes. The interest in enhancing or preserving the political power of the party in control of the state government is not such a neutral position”.

In chapter 3, Judge Stevens takes on another issue that has plagued the political landscape, campaign finance. Citizens United v. FEC was issued on January 21, 2010, by a 5-4 vote with Judge Scalia’s writing the majority opinion and Judge Steven’s the dissent. The ruling stated corporations and unions had a First Amendment right to spend money on independent political advocacy. Scalia’s argument was independent expenditures does not equal direct contributions and limiting them was seen as restricting free speech. The government cannot ban political spending based on the speaker’s identity. Stevens countered corporations are not citizens and corporations do not vote, do not run for office, and are not members of society in the same way individuals are. Judge Steven even referenced President Theodore Roosevelt’s annual speech citing the corruption that would come from corporations’ political contributions. The decision has led to political action committees (PACs) and Super PACs of anonymous donors and money in politics, which in the least case smacks of impropriety. Again, while Judge Stevens addressed a national crisis, he is always brought solutions. He finishes chapter 3 writing “Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns”.

Judge John Paul Stevens believed and wasn’t afraid to address the problems of the country and provide a legislative solution through the law of the land. John Paul Stevens was revered not because he was always “right” in a political sense, but because he embodied what many believe a judge should be, independent, principled, careful in his rhetoric and most importantly committed to justice over ideology. He applied logic, reason and ethics not only to his decisions but demonstrated through his writings.

He passed away in 2019 at the age of 99 but left us all with civics lesson on how to improve our democracy.

And now you know...

Philosophy is the art of thinking, the building block of progress that shapes critical thinking across economics, ethics, religion, and science.

METAPHYSICS: Literally, the term metaphysics means ‘beyond the physical.’ Typically, this is the branch that most people think of when they picture philosophy. In metaphysics, the goal is to answer the what and how questions in life. Who are we, and what are time and space?

LOGIC: The study of reasoning. Much like metaphysics, understanding logic helps to understand and appreciate how we perceive the rest of our world. More than that, it provides a foundation for which to build and interpret arguments and analyses.

ETHICS: The study of morality, right and wrong, good and evil. Ethics tackles difficult conversations by adding weight to actions and decisions. Politics takes ethics to a larger scale, applying it to a group (or groups) of people. Political philosophers study political governments, laws, justice, authority, rights, liberty, ethics, and much more.

AESTHETICS: What is beautiful? Philosophers try to understand, qualify, and quantify what makes art what it is. Aesthetics also takes a deeper look at the artwork itself, trying to understand the meaning behind it, both art as a whole and art on an individual level. A question an aesthetics philosopher would seek to address is whether or not beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.

EPISTEMOLOGY: This is the study and understanding of knowledge. The main question is how do we know? We can question the limitations of logic, how comprehension works, and the ability (or perception) to be certain.