Ruling Renews Rumors of Justice Stevens' Retirement

(Jan. 22) -- When the Supreme Court overturned long-standing campaign fiance reform limits with a ruling announced Thursday, it also renewed speculation about the future of its longest-serving -- and most liberal -- member. Court-watchers are wondering whether Justice John Paul Stevens has had enough and may retire this spring.

During the last round of Stevens retirement rumors in October, the 89-year-old justice did not exactly knock down the scuttlebutt. "That can't be news," Stevens told USA Today. "I'm not exactly a kid." But predictable or not, a looming vacancy on the Supreme Court is always news, and with the court poised to take on divisive issues such as gay marriage and abortion rights in coming years, Stevens' retirement could have a far-reaching impact.

So do the SCOTUS gossips have it right? Consider the evidence for yourself:

He Hired Just One Clerk This Term
The initial speculation that this term could be Stevens' last began in September, when the justice hired only one clerk. Active judges generally hire four clerks to help them with their caseload; retired judges are entitled to just one. In April, Justice David Souter signaled his retirement by slowing his hiring. And last year, after speaking with a group of Stevens' former clerks, Newsweek's Howard Fineman predicted the justice would be next to leave the bench. "There is NO WAY he would go into next year without the full group," one clerk told Fineman anonymously. "He's still vigorous, and I think he wants to leave the court that way," another clerk added.

His Age Is Showing
Thursday, the big story out of the Supreme Court was its dramatic rejection of campaign finance reform. Stevens delivered a contemptuous dissent from the liberal minority, but those in the courtroom couldn't help but notice that the ordinarily sharp and witty justice seemed to be struggling. Jan Crawford of CBS said the dissent was a characteristically powerful one, but that "it was striking to see him appear to stumble over words as he read it, to mispronounce words like 'corruption' and 'allegation,' to seem to lose his place in his summary, to often hit the microphone with his hand or his papers." Then again, she noted, "maybe it was just a bad day, and Lord knows we've all had those." But Stevens seemed frailer to Slate Magazine's Dahlia Lithwick as well. She reported that Stevens spoke "for almost 20 minutes in a slow, halting voice." And blogger Tony Mauro of the Legal Times blog called Stevens' delivery of the 90-page dissent "a little painful to watch."

There's a Democratic President
Stevens will be 90 this year, but his "bad day" may have simply been a reaction to the court's ruling, which seemed to perturb the liberal justice thoroughly. As one of few liberals on the Supreme Court, Stevens is more likely to retire with President Barack Obama in office to appoint a new justice in his place. In his scathing dissent, Stevens said the ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation" and is "a rejection of the common sense of the American people." Joan Biskupic of USA Today reported that Stevens "invoked the names of influential and long-gone justices" like Thurgood Marshall during his dissent, lamenting the court's rightward shift over his 35 years on the bench.