BillBarnhart
Author, journalist & commentator
Author, journalist & commentator
Your Subtitle text
A conversation with Bill Barnhart
A: First of all, he was never a pope, as the index of a popular book suggests. My friend and collaborator Gene Schlickman, a respected former Illinois legislator, proposed a book on Stevens after our first book, Kerner, received acclaim several years ago. As we began the research, it was amazing to me that someone who has shaped American law for nearly four decades is so little known. We discovered that the answer is his commitment to protecting the federal courts from political interference.
Q: How did you get past the jargon
and complexity that makes the work of the Supreme Court hard to understand?
A: Well, I
spent years on the Chicago
Tribune’s business desk explaining derivatives, Federal Reserve policy and
corporate financial reports. Constitutional law, by comparison, isn’t that
tough.
Q: Could a John Paul Stevens be
appointed to the Supreme Court today?
A: Probably not. That’s why his story is so important. American needs a serious debate about how judges reach the bench at the state and federal levels. Too much money and too many ideologically partisan groups have been injected into the process, forces that played no role in Stevens’s elevation to the Supreme Court.
A: Probably not. That’s why his story is so important. American needs a serious debate about how judges reach the bench at the state and federal levels. Too much money and too many ideologically partisan groups have been injected into the process, forces that played no role in Stevens’s elevation to the Supreme Court.
Q: What makes a good Supreme Court
justice?
A: The book concludes with several ideas on that point. Let me give you one: “Good writers are good thinkers. An appellate court judge who lets his or her clerks write opinions should automatically be disqualified for higher judicial office.” As a non-lawyer who just spent several years learning about Constitutional law and the Supreme Court, I feel quite strongly about this.
A: The book concludes with several ideas on that point. Let me give you one: “Good writers are good thinkers. An appellate court judge who lets his or her clerks write opinions should automatically be disqualified for higher judicial office.” As a non-lawyer who just spent several years learning about Constitutional law and the Supreme Court, I feel quite strongly about this.
Q: What’s your next book?
A: I’m not
sure, but as a former business columnist I’m developing a deep interest in the
past and future of American manufacturing.
Q: Did Stevens cooperate?
A: No, not in the way we had hoped. On the other hand, his gracious but firm arm’s length stance towards us as biographers is more evidence of his independence. We obtained wonderful cooperation from family members, former law partners, former law clerks and dozens of others. There are no off-the-record comments in the book.
A: No, not in the way we had hoped. On the other hand, his gracious but firm arm’s length stance towards us as biographers is more evidence of his independence. We obtained wonderful cooperation from family members, former law partners, former law clerks and dozens of others. There are no off-the-record comments in the book.
