Watts, Kathryn A.

English

Northwestern University Illinois, School of Law: Scholarly Commons

Copyright 2012 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A.Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 106, No. 2845JUSTICE STEVENS’S BLACK LEATHER ARM CHAIRKathryn A. Watts*As a law clerk to Justice Stevens in the October Term 2002, I felt thatthe very best part of the job came almost every afternoon. Without anyadvance warning, the Justice would get up from his desk and walk throughchambers to the law clerks’ main office and plop down into a well-wornblack leather arm chair that formed part of a cozy seating area flanked bytall bookshelves filled with volumes of case reporters and the United StatesCode. As soon as the Justice started settling himself into his arm chair, myco-clerks and I all knew that the Justice was ready to chat and that the fourof us should gather around the Justice and take a seat.Once we were all seated, we would talk. And talk. And talk. Theseconversations, which often would span an hour or more each afternoon,generally were quite casual with the Justice putting his feet up on theadjacent coffee table. The Term that I clerked for the Justice, we had no endof interesting cases to talk about, including Lawrence v. Texas involvingTexas’s anti-sodomy statute1 and the University of Michigan affirmativeaction cases.2 When we sat down together, the Justice almost alwayssolicited our views first, politely asking us what we thought about particularissues and gently questioning us as we tried to articulate our own views ofthe cases. The thing that amazed me the most about these conversations washow tremendously patient the Justice was with us and how very generoushe was with his time. Even when he strongly disagreed with our views(which happened from time to time), he would kindly indulge us, giving ustime to try to articulate our own views before providing us with his viewsand with an honest assessment of what wrinkles we might have missed inour own analyses. Only after he felt that we had reached reasoneddisagreement and that no more could be said on a given case would hesubtly (and perhaps subconsciously) start to pat his right hand on his leftshoulder—a signal that we quickly took to mean that we were donediscussing that case and that he had made up his mind.It was often at this point that our conversations would move towardlighter, nonsubstantive topics ranging from my co-clerk’s flying lessons to* Garvey Schubert Barer Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Research and FacultyDevelopment, University of Washington School of Law; Law Clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens,October Term 2002. Thanks to Lisa Manheim and Rafael Pardo for helpful comments on this tribute,and thanks as well to my co-clerks Troy McKenzie, Eric Olson, and Amy Wildermuth for reviewing itand providing feedback.1 539 U.S. 558 (2003).2 See Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003); Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).N O R T H W E S T E R N U N I V E R S I T Y L A W R E V I E W846my own attempts at perfecting my mom’s recipe for apple pie, which Iwould bake for special occasions like birthdays in chambers. Here too hewas always extremely generous with his time, relishing the opportunity tosit around with us talking about sports, current events, or even the weather.My favorite conversation of the entire year occurred one Mondaywhile the Justice was seated in his black leather arm chair. “So Justice, didyou catch the Washington Redskins game on TV yesterday?” my co-clerkEric Olson asked Justice Stevens after we had finished discussing variouscases on the Court’s oral argument calendar that week. The Justice sat upexcitedly in his chair, eager to discuss the game, which he had indeedwatched. So did my co-clerk Amy Wildermuth, who also had watched thegame. After the Justice, Eric, and Amy finished their animated rehashing ofthe good and bad parts of the game, another one of my co-clerks, TroyMcKenzie, chimed in: “Justice, did you by chance happen to see the PBSSpecial on TV over the weekend about who is the real Shakespeare?” TheJustice’s eyes lit up, and he nodded enthusiastically indicating that he hadindeed seen the special. Then Troy and the Justice engaged in a heateddiscussion about Shakespeare’s works with the Justice emphasizing his ownbelief in the theory that Shakespeare’s plays were actually written byEdward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.3In my mind, this simple exchange—which flowed seamlessly fromcases on the Court’s docket to football to Shakespeare—epitomized what isso wonderful about Justice Stevens: his sense of balance in life. The Justicetook his job at the Court extremely seriously and worked very hard, and hecared deeply about justice. He studied and dissected all of the briefs veryclosely prior to oral argument. He was intent on getting the reasoning inopinions correct, and in order to do so, he—unlike the other Justices—drafted his own first drafts of all opinions, often emailing us draft opinionsbright and early before we had even arrived at work. Yet he did not let hisjob define or consume him. Nor did he let it get to his head. To the contrary,the Justice found time to regularly play golf and tennis while he was on theCourt. Indeed, he occasionally would squeeze in a morning tennis gamebefore sitting on the bench, dashing in to chambers in his tennis whites withjust enough time to shower, clean up and tie his bow tie before jumping onthe bench for oral argument. I could always tell if he had won his tennismatch by whether or not he had a big grin on his face as he rushed intochambers.In addition, in the winter months, he found time to take in somesunshine at his home in Florida where I have heard that his neighbors knewhim simply as an attorney from D.C. named “John.” He loved watchingfootball and basketball, and he relished betting small amounts (usually adollar at a time) on games with Chief Justice Rehnquist. He generally ate3 For more on Justice Stevens’s theories on Shakespeare, see Jess Bravin, Justice Stevens Rendersan Opinion on Who Wrote Shakespeare’s Plays, WALL ST. J., Apr. 18, 2009, at A1.106:845 (2012) Justice Stevens's Black Leather Arm Chair847just a simple sandwich for lunch that he brought into work in a plasticTupperware container, sometimes joining us outside in one of the Court’sbeautiful courtyards on sunny days and chatting with us about how we weredoing.My interview for the clerkship with the Justice, which took place in thesummer of 2001 at the end of my third year of law school, should havetipped me off to the Justice’s great sense of balance in life and his diverseinterests both within the law and outside of the law. During the interview,the Justice started out by asking me about a research paper I had writtenduring law school,4 which related to his famous opinion in Chevron U.S.A.Inc. v. NRDC,5 and he questioned me about Justice Souter’s majorityopinion and Justice Scalia’s dissent in United States v. Mead Corp.,6 theCourt’s most recent pronouncement of note on Chevron deference.However, after covering these substantive matters, the Justice changed theconversation to a variety of much lighter topics, asking me about myexperiences as a law student at Northwestern (his alma matter), how I likedliving in Chicago (his hometown), and what I thought of Wrigley Field (hisfavorite ballpark). The subject that most animated him during my interviewwas decidedly not his famous Chevron decision or Justice Scalia’s bitingdissent in Mead Corp. Rather, it was rumors that renovations might begin athis beloved Wrigley Field—a ballpark where as a young boy he watchedBabe Ruth call his shot during the 1932 World Series7 and where more than4 The senior research project served as the basis for an article that I subsequently coauthored withProfessor Tom Merrill. See Thomas W. Merrill & Kathryn Tongue Watts, Agency Rules with the Forceof Law: The Original Convention, 116 HARV. L. REV. 467 (2002). When the article was published in theHarvard Law Review during my clerkship, the Justice quickly digested the 120+ page article and typedout a two-page note. Much like the conversations I had with Justice Stevens and my co-clerks while theJustice sat in his black arm chair, the note was thoughtful and generous but also honest. Specifically, theJustice started out his note by indulging me with some praise about how the piece was a “scholarly andthoroughly researched piece of work,” but he ultimately minced no words stating: “[I]t will not surpriseyou that I do not agree with your central thesis.” This was not the last time the Justice offered me somecandid feedback on my scholarship. After publishing an article in the Yale Law Journal in 2009, theJustice wrote to me with some thoughtful substantive comments and also with what he called one small“flyspeck,” which the Justice easily spotted on his one read through the lengthy article even though ithad gone undetected by me and the many Yale editors who had scoured the piece. The “flyspeck” had todo with my inadvertent misuse of the word “weary.” See Kathryn A. Watts, Proposing a Place forPolitics in Arbitrary and Capricious Review, 119 YALE L.J. 2, 54 (2009) (“[C]ourts should be weary ofpolitical influences resting on pure partisan politics . . . .”). As the Justice put it in his characteristicallykind note to me: “The flyspeck confirms my view that every brief and every article, no matter howcarefully edited, contains at least one typo. Line 6 of page 54 suggests that you may have been a littleweary when you should have been more wary about the risk of an undetected typo.” As I read this, Iremember wishing that I could be just half as witty and half as sharp as the Justice.5 467 U.S. 837 (1984).6 533 U.S. 218 (2001).7 See generally Supreme Court Justice Stevens Opens Up (CBS television broadcast Nov. 28, 20105:01 PM), available at http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7096996n (stating that JusticeStevens considers his ruling that Babe Ruth called his shot the “one ruling I will not be reversed on”).N O R T H W E S T E R N U N I V E R S I T Y L A W R E V I E W848seven decades later the Justice in 2005 tossed out a ceremonial first pitch ata Cubs game.8The Justice’s ability to maintain such diverse, balanced interests inlife—despite sitting on the highest Court in the land for more than threedecades—is likely what enabled him to keep the job up for so long withoutbecoming jaded, feeling too downtrodden when his views were not adoptedby the majority, or forgetting that there is room for reasoned, respectfuldisagreement. The Justice wrote many dissents during the year I clerked forhim.9 Yet whenever the Court decided a case contrary to the way we knewJustice Stevens felt it should have been decided, we would look at theJustice’s face as he sat in his black leather arm chair and see that—evenwhen we could detect disappointment on his face—he did not dwell in thepast or hold grudges. Indeed, he sometimes joked light heartedly with usabout being the “lone dissenter.” From his seat in the black arm chair, theclear message he conveyed to us was that just like in baseball, he expectedto win some and lose some when it came to judging. In other words,“onward and upward” was his lesson for us.I think often about this lesson and the many others that Justice Stevenstaught me from his black leather arm chair: the importance of beinggenerous, patient and kind; the value of listening to and accepting thosewith different views; the need to keep your chin up even when things do notturn out as you want them to; and the benefits that flow from putting yourall into your job but nonetheless maintaining a sense of balance andperspective in life. I am so grateful that I had the opportunity to learn theselessons from the Justice. It truly was the opportunity of a lifetime. Now thatthe Justice is retired, I am very sorry that he will no longer give four newclerks each year the opportunity to learn from him, and I am sorry that theWhen I was clerking for the Justice, a scorecard from that famous game where the Justice saw BabeRuth call his shot hung on the wall in my office in the Justice’s chambers.8 Like everything else in his life, the Justice was determined not just to throw out the ceremonialpitch, but to throw it well. Indeed, in anticipation of throwing out the pitch, he practiced at a park withone of his law clerks and also practiced pitching with his wife. When I saw the Justice in Chicago at abar association event the day after he threw out the pitch, he was still beaming from ear to ear. Yearslater, in October 2011 when I had the privilege of moderating a fireside chat with the Justice at theannual meeting of the American College of Trial Lawyers, I asked him whether he most prized the dayhe threw out the first pitch at the Cubs game or the day he was confirmed as a Justice. Although theJustice hesitated a bit in answering the question, I sensed that he leaned in favor of the day he tossed outthe first pitch.9 See, e.g., Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 222 (2003) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Scheidler v. Nat’lAss’n for Women, 537 U.S. 393, 412 (2003) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11,32 (2003) (Stevens, J., dissenting); United States v. Am. Library Ass’n, 539 U.S. 194, 220 (2003)(Stevens, J., dissenting); Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 282 (2003) (Stevens, J., dissenting); GreenTree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444, 454 (2003) (Stevens, J., concurring in the judgment anddissenting in part).106:845 (2012) Justice Stevens's Black Leather Arm Chair849black leather arm chair in his chambers is likely not getting quite as muchuse as it did before Justice Stevens retired.1010 As a retired Justice, Justice Stevens does still keep an office in the Court (where his black armchair presumably still sits), and he does still hire one law clerk per Term, but not the four clerks that hehired per Term when I was clerking for him.N O R T H W E S T E R N U N I V E R S I T Y L A W R E V I E W850

Justice Stevens\u27s Black Leather Arm Chair

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&amp;context=nulr

Justice Stevens\u27s Black Leather Arm Chair

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Northwestern University Illinois, School of Law: Scholarly Commons