Justice Stevens Stumbles: A Step To Retirement?

(GETTY IMAGES/Mark Wilson)
But Stevens is unpredictable, and he's seemed as sharp as ever from the bench, so I thought maybe, just maybe, he would pull something out of his sleeve at the last minute and stick around for awhile.
Until today.
Stevens spent a good 20 minutes this morning reading a summary of his scathing dissent in the campaign finance case. And he showed his age.
The language in his written dissent was forceful. But it was striking to see him appear to stumble over words as he read it, to mispronounce words like "corruption" and "allegation," to seem to lose his place in his summary, to often hit the microphone with his hand or his papers.
Maybe it was just a bad day, and Lord knows we've all had those. And certainly it was the longest summary from the bench in some time. But it was so different from the John Paul Stevens we've come to know. He's the maverick justice who asks pointed questions from the bench and cleverly makes his points, sometimes with sly dry humor.
Today, he was different, and almost felt like relief when he finally got through his summary.
High Court Eases Campaign Spending Limits
Supreme Court Ruling Will Cause Major Upheaval in Campaigns
Obama Hammers Supreme Court Ruling
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- Obama prom pictures surface 130 Comments
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 156 Comments
- Is President Obama ending the war on terror? 284 Comments
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- Now, some unions upset over Obamacare
- IRS official Lois Lerner placed on leave 131 Comments
- Rand Paul uses 2016 bully pulpit to push Obama on drones













Pretty bad when we worry about the health of Justice Stevens, but he's right on the issues. How about the five who voted against his opinion be forced to retire, too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ve_R7BKIwU
If Justice Sevens had done that...
Do you really want to let govt decide who gets free speech rights and who doesn't?
Should J. Immelt decide tomorrow to back a Senator or 50 senators he has the full resources of GE to do his bidding and TV advertising. He could simply buy all the advertising (TV and Internet) and crowd out all opposing views, we would never know the difference.
How people can decry the influence of lobbyists and yet be in favor of this flies in the face of common sense.
I also foresee the possibility that corporations will not be held to the same level regarding libel and slander, since they have more than enough money to fight almost any lawsuit that comes their way, particularly if they are falsely attacking candidates with smaller warchests (i.e., the average citizen who wants to run for office to make a difference). Have we now virtually guaranteed that the only candidates that have a fighting chance are those who already have huge bank accounts of their own? The little guy cannot win against these behemoths.
Like they did with Bush?