Shakespeare and Stevens

Todd Zywicki and Stephen Bainbridge have taken note of what the former calls the “idiosyncratic” and the latter the “bizarre” opinion of Justice John Paul Stevens in Granholm v. Heald (the alcohol-by-mail case). To quote Professor Bainbridge’s startlingly blunt assessment (lawyers are usually much more, er, tactful when writing about sitting members of the Supreme Court),

Stevens’ opinion is so far removed from ordinary legal analysis as to be laughable, were it not for the fact that as the second-most senior member of the Court he wields enormous power over all of us. One can but assume that he’s now completely past it.

Professor Zywicki says nothing quite so succinct, but his views of Justice Stevens’ rationality are so little disguised that The Pragmatist labels him “intemperate” and laments,

It is saddening that Professor Zywicki seems to have so little respect for the Justice. I am not quite sure what has provoked this. But this incivility seems not only uncharitable but also incomprehensible. The views as to alcohol (as far as they are divergent from ours) of the writers, proposers, and ratifiers of the 21st Amendment certainly seem relevant to understanding it; and it is commonplace to, e.g., make reference to early judicial opinions on constitutional provisions to support an interpretation of them. Professor Zywicki is not criticizing Justice Stevens's opinion. He's attacking Justice Stevens. (And Professor Bainbridge, on his blog, has done so openly in response.) I am dismayed.

While I’m inclined to agree with Justice Stevens’ conclusion – that the 21st Amendment gives states broader authority over the distribution of alcohol within their borders than the majority allows – I also must concur with the Zywicki-Bainbridge view of the quality of his opinion. There is a sound argument buried inside, but it is overlaid with nonsense. I’m not, however, very surprised.

One of my hobbies is the so-called “controversy” over the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays and poems. Thus I encountered, two years ago, evidence that Justice Stevens is capable of peculiar trains of thought.

Bob Grumman, a minimalist poet and pro-Stratfordian controversialist, has called attention to a letter from Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens to Paul Streitz, author of Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I. His Honor’s note, on Court letterhead and dated July 1, 2002, reads:

Thank you for sending me a copy of “Oxford”, a most interesting and impressive piece of work. Although I learned a great deal from it, and find your central thesis fascinating, it seems unlikely to me that so many people have been mistaken about the date of Edward de Vere’s birth. You do, however, provide strong additional evidence supporting the Oxfordian position on the authorship issue.

Sincerely,
John Paul Stevens

Justice Stevens’ Oxfordianism is a well-known fact, and everyone, especially a judge, is entitled to a harmless eccentricity. This letter points, however, to something for which “eccentricity” may not be le mot juste. Mr. Streitz’s opus is, in fact, quite a lunatic production. Here is the author's own summary of its thesis [reproduced without alteration]:

1. Oxford was born in Cheshunt, England, 1548. He was the son of Elizabeth tudor and her stepfather, Thomas Seymour.

2. Oxford married Anne Cecil because her father changed the laws of England to make him the legal heir to the throne.

3. Oxford had a child with his mother.

4. Oxford did not die in 1604, but either was abducted or disappeared to the Isle of Man to write the King James Bible.

He opines that his work “does clear the way for removing the Windsors off the throne, because there is a direct line from Elizabeth to present day”. Perhaps he hopes that Englishmen disgusted by royal scandals will convert to his views.

What I said back then seems pertinent now:

A recurring and constitutionally insoluble problem afflicting our highest court is that of easing out members whose mental faculties are no longer adequate for the performance of their duties. I am far from saying that a single letter, which may, I suppose, be mere politeness to a madman, is proof of incompetence. Nonetheless, I shall from now on read Justice Stevens' opinions with an extra measure of care and skepticism.

Or maybe two extra measures.

Comments

[Bruce Allardice]

Mr. Streitz's opus is even more bizarre than you correctly point out. Even if Oxford was Elizabeth's illegitimte son, and even if illegitimate children could be made heirs to the throne, Henry VIII's illegitimate children would take precedence over Elizabeth's. As one recent learned article proves, there are numerous present-day descendants of Henry's Carey "love-children", including the current Prince of Wales.

Of course one benefit of the Tudor Restoration would be that the thrones of England and Scotland would become separate again. And the Stuart Pretender would be restored. But that is another story!