SCOTUSBlog has a running feature concerning Justice Stevens, including this one that includes some collection of audio and other material, such as a transcript of his interview with Brian Lamb.
A law school blogger/court watcher who is getting some attention lately wrote a good piece on Stevens' last question in an anonymous speech case. A taste:
Then, as the white warning light turned on upon Bopp's lectern to signal that his half-hour was almost up, Justice Stevens leaned forward and spoke into his microphone:
Would it be legitimate public interest to say, I would like to know who signed the petition, because I would like to try to persuade them that their views should be modified? Is there public interest in encouraging debate on the underlying issue?
When Bopp called such an interest "marginal," Stevens continued:
Well, [public disclosure] does identify people who have a particular point of view on a public issue. And if you have the other point of view, don't you have an interest in finding out who you would like to convince to change their minds?
With that one line of questioning, taking up no more than a minute in the hour-long argument, Justice Stevens politely condemned the culture wars' hardened partisanship that has poisoned the country's political and legal climate in the decades following his confirmation to the court in 1975.
Bopp also answered Scalia's sarcastic retort about those who publicly sign ballot measures being required to submit personal identifying information having to be able to take the heat of opposition by pointing out to threats to a campaign manager's family. But, wouldn't such top supporters already be public figures? The law might be overbroad (only recently was the public record law applied so broadly) and as applied some who simply sign a petition might not have to submit the information. But, as applied to this guy, that's a hard sell constitutionally.
The blogger also points to a decision made by the Supreme Court, with Breyer and Ginsburg making public their opposition, to not allowing the public to enter the Supreme Court building through the front door. Breyer speaks of the symbolism:
But the significance of the Court’s front entrance extends beyond its design and function. Writers and artists regularly use the steps to represent the ideal that anyone in this country may obtain meaningful justice through application to this Court. And the steps appear in countless photographs commemorating famous arguments or other moments of historical importance. In short, time has proven the success of Gilbert’s vision: To many members of the public, this Court’s main entrance and front steps are not only a means to, but also a metaphor for, access to the Court itself.
This is why, even though visitors will remain able to leave via the front entrance, I find dispiriting the Court’s decision to refuse to permit the public to enter. I certainly recognize the concerns identified in the two security studies that led to this recent decision (which reaffirmed a decision made several years ago). But potential security threats will exist regardless of which entrance we use. And, in making this decision, it is important not to undervalue the symbolic and historical importance of allowing visitors to enter the Court after walking up Gilbert’s famed front steps.
The symbolism reminds me of Speech Out Of Doors by Timothy Zick, which points to the important symbolic messages various types of locations adds to protests, such as those who protest in front of the Supreme Court. The same C-SPAN series that included the Lamb interview discussed the somewhat unexpected role the public space there had over the years for protests. The opening entrance -- I think too of the stars of The First Monday In October going up the stairs -- has similar cachet. Going through a side entrance, not so much.
A final comment on Stevens. The discussions in the series of posts referenced at the beginning suggest a polite, hard working, carefully reasoning and open to change justice who trusts judges to make hard decisions, but who often took small steps. Though at times I might disagree (Texas v. Johnson -- and his support of anti-flag burning laws -- underlines the problems with not following consistent rules) with him, these are great qualities, in a person and a justice. He is the epitome of a public servant.