It turns out that starting a law professor job in a new city does not actually leave one with tons of time to write or blog. I had planned on doing a short review of Linda Greenhouse’s book on Justice Blackmun but just could not find the time. I did find the time to read it, however, and think it makes for very useful reading as we contemplate what a retirement might mean (as Blackmun was the last Justice to retire).
The book has some fun facts that the average Con Law person may not know (in no particular order):
1. Rehnquist’s middle name used to be Donald until he changed it to his grandmother’s maiden name (Hubbs). And you thought he was no feminist!
2. Blackmun’s ashes were spread all over the place, upon his request.
3. Blackmun played Justice Story in Spielberg’s Amistad.
4. Kennedy asked Blackmun not to step down.
5. Blackmun gave Ginsburg grades (and none too favorable ones) when she appeared before the Court to argue.
Aside from the trivia, though, more can be said for why the book is important to read now, before we embark on a big fight over a vacancy. Nixon appointed Blackmun–and Blackmun turned out to be no Nixonian (much like Bush I appointed Souter–and Souter turned out to be no Bushie). In short, Justices aren’t quite as predictable as we assume. And each grows to deal with his or her own personal demons: in Blackmun’s case, Roe clearly became a preoccupation. He wanted to save it; he wanted to justify it; he wanted to refine it. There were times he seemed to be holding onto Roe for the wrong reasons. It was an accidental legacy in many ways but grew to become a central part of his identity. We just can’t predict very well what sorts of assignments have the capacity to change a Justice’s trajectory.
This is, of course, not to say that each side in the battle (that may or may not happen this summer) shouldn’t advocate vigorously for whomever it thinks is the most qualified and the most desirable to seat on the Court. It is only to say that psychological profiling may be as useful as investigating a nominee’s paper trail–and that chance will play a role in any Justice’s development.
PS: As I read Greenhouse’s book, I tried to see if David Garrow’s thesis (that Blackmun gave his clerks too much freedom and power) seemed confirmed at all by what she was reporting. I have to say that I was unpersuaded.
Posted by Ethan Leib on June 29, 2005 at 08:46 PM
» Blog Round-up – Friday, July 1st. from SCOTUSblog FindLaw has John Dean interviewing Dana Berliner, plaintiff’s co-counsel in the Kelo v. New London. Yesterday, Paul Sracic, Associate Professor of Political Science at Youngstown State University, wrote this article for USA Today on Justice Rehnquist a… [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 1, 2005 10:03:01 AM
Comments
Greenhouse tends to idolize all the Justices, or at least all the liberal ones, so she wouldn’t be one to try to help push Garrow’s thesis.
Posted by: Joe H. | Jun 29, 2005 8:51:51 PM