Tribute to John Paul Stevens DAVID H. SOUTER Justice Stevens is supposed to be older than I am, but the evidence is mixed. I remember one morning back in June of 2009, for example, when he and I happened to get to work atjust the same time. I was in a suit, but John was still in tennis shorts, after one of his four weekly singles matches at 7:00 a.m. (He usually arrived in civvies.) I asked him, how’d the game go. There was a little victory leap. “I really beat him.” John’s a player. Which is enough to make you wonder why the old urge to win another game didn’t keep him on the Bench forjust two years and a few days more, all it would have taken to pass Jus tice Douglas’s record tenure. There was no rea son he had to step down from the one Court while he was still running aroundthe other one; he had deputized me to tell him if he stayed too long, thereby giving me the only sinecure I ever held. And it’s not as though he only skir mished on a tennis court: consider the bridge playing and dissents like Citizens United.1 But the Supreme Court isn’t a personal game, and there’s more to John Stevens than the player. He doesn’t live his life reacting to the way others live theirs, any more than he ever felt a need to know how someone else on the Court viewed a case before he decided what to do on it himself. You could see it in the way he worked over the years. Justices range all over the spectrum of inclination (or not) to talk about the argued cases in the couple of days between coming off the Bench and sit ting down at conference. John’s door was al ways open to anyone who wanted to bat some thing around, but he was hardly ever (maybe never) the one to ask about a colleague’s take on an issue before all nine of us were sitting down together, ready for the first pass at it. He thought the Court would do its best thinking if we brought our own thinking fresh to the table; the singular insight was less likely to get lost in hasty consensus, and any homogenizing could be donejust as well after conference. He didn’t reach out for the comfort ofpre-agreement. And a good thing that was, for often enough he was the one who saw something the rest ofus didn’t, or saw it in some way we didn’t, especially in those cases that challenge the best of judges to stay awake. The Court has its share of them, usually raising statu tory construction issues: is the clause limiting something orjust giving a random illustration? Matters like that. It’s not that you let yourself 196 JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY John Paul Stevens was assigned to a code-breaking team from 1942 to 1945 and earned a Bronze Star for his service in 1946. While stationed in Pearl Har bor, Hawaii, he served as a watch officer analyzing intercepted Japanese communications. give them short shrift when they come along; they just don’t stimulate. When it was time to take up one like that at conference, I (at least) might be sitting there with a weak pulse, and then it would be John’s turn, and we’d hear something like this: “You know, when you get into it, this is really a fascinating little case.” And he’d mean it, and he’d say why. He might not get eight other votes for “fascinating,” but he’d give the case a shot of pep it hadn’t had before. No appellatejudge I’ve ever known has done more honor to the rule an old New Hamp shire trial judge told me years ago: “There are no unimportant cases.” That’s not so hard to remember when the parties are right there in front of you in a trial courtroom, but John didn’t seem to have any trouble realizing it two courts...