John Paul Stevens was born in 1920 in Chicago, Illinois. He graduated from the University of Chicago and Northwestern Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of the law review. Stevens served in the Navy during WWII and was awarded the Bronze Star. He worked as a law clerk and then as an associate counsel before being appointed to the US Court of Appeals in 1970. In 1975, President Ford appointed Stevens as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, where he served until retiring in 2010. Stevens was known for his centrist stances and belief that the Constitution should be interpreted based on changing societal standards.
2. 1920 Chicago, Illinois University of Chicago 1941 Graduated Phi Beta Kappa 1942 Married Elizabeth Sheeren Northwestern Law School Editor-in-chief of school’s law review Navy–WWII Bronze Star
3. Experience Law clerk for Justice William Rutledge Associate Council for a Congressional Subcommittee on the Study of Monopoly Power Second Vice President to Chicago Bar Association 1970-1975 US Court of Appeals for Seventh Circuit 1975: Appointed by President Ford as Associate Justice on Supreme Court 98-0
4. “ It is not our job to apply laws that have not yet been written.” “ The practice of executing such offenders is a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society.” “ Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual’s freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority.” Quotes
6. Born Sunday September 17, 1939 Melrose, MA In high school: “Most Sophisticated” “ Most Likely to Succeed” Graduated Magna Cum Laude from HARVARD!!! Rhodes Scholar at Oxford Studied law at Harvard From Cradle to…Law School? Currently 68 years old…In his prime, baby!
7.
8.
9.
10. Quotes “ The court’s interpretive task is to determine the meaning of constitutional language as it was understood when the framers proposed it.” “ The usual thinking of the common law is suspicious of the all-or-nothing analysis that tends to produce legal petrification instead of an evolving boundary between the domains of old principles. Common-law method tends to pay respect instead to detail, seeking to understand old principles afresh by new examples and new counterexamples. The ‘tradition is a living thing,’ albeit one that moves by moderate steps carefully taken.”
