University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository
Abstract
During the 1980s, when the Court\u27s approval rating was relatively high, commentators from both ends of the ideological spectrum remarked on the importance of Justices\u27 values and views, and bemoaned the public\u27s utter lack of attention to the Court and judicial appointments. President Ronald Reagan\u27s Department of Justice prefaced an extensive analysis of the momentous issues at stake for the Court and the Constitution with a call for attention to the critical yet often overlooked values and philosophies of federal judges. Professor Laurence Tribe similarly introduced a historical analysis of the Court\u27s vital role by describing Justices\u27 powerful, if often unseen and rarely understood, impact on nearly every aspect of our lives. Both were correct: because under our Constitution, We, the People govern, public appreciation of the actual influences on judicial decisionmaking should be seen as desirable, even if the Court\u27s popularity suffers when the public disagrees with it. The Reagan Administration and Professor Tribe diverged, predictably, on the desirable content of Justices\u27 values and philosophies, and both pointed to the example of Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. While Reagan officials singled out Justice Brennan as possessing precisely the wrong values and philosophies and targeted many of his activist decisions for overruling, Professor Tribe held him up as an exemplar of a catalytic Justice whose work on the Court greatly improved Americans\u27 lives. Around this time, Justice Brennan agreed to cooperate in the writing of his biography by Stephen Wermiel, to whom he gave extraordinary access during his final few years of service before his 1990 retirement. Wermiel later partnered with coauthor Seth Stern to complete the project, and in 2010, they published Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion, an engaging account of the life and work of one of the Court\u27s most influential, effective, and controversial Justices. Over those decades, the Court\u27s vital role in American life advanced from often overlooked and rarely understood to a frequent subject of news reports and popular cable comedy shows. For example, the Court\u27s ruling in Citizens United sparked a valuable nationwide conversation, from President Barack Obama\u27s State of the Union address, to Occupy demonstrations across the nation, to a running joke by comedian Stephen Colbert that included the formation of an active Super PAC and Colbert\u27s indirect candidacy in a state presidential primary. Although the public better appreciates the extent of the Court\u27s power, partisan battles fuel continued confusion about the proper role of Justices\u27 personal views and values
