President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump Pay Respect to Justice John Paul Stevens…

The body of retired justice John Paul Stevens, who died last week at age 99, returned Monday morning to the Great Hall of the Supreme Court, where he served for 35 terms.

The coffin of Justice Stevens, draped with an American flag, is in the center of the Great Hall, where he is lying in repose. The busts of former chief justices rest on the sides of the room.  This morning President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump paid their final respects.


The president and first lady bowed their heads in silent prayer before taking a few moments to view Justice Stevens portrait, holding hands. The first couple did not make public remarks and left a few moments later.

This entry was posted in Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, FLOTUS, History, Melania Trump, President Trump, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump Pay Respect to Justice John Paul Stevens…

  1. scrap1ron says:

    Mom always said to only say good things about the recently deceased. Just-us John Paul Stevens is dead. Good.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Sporty says:

    I wouldn’t have gone to a traitors funeral.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Rami says:

    Heard earlier today that the sitting Supreme Court Justices would be there sometime today. Curious, has RBG been sited?

    Liked by 3 people

  4. 335blues says:

    I love America.
    It is with the greatest respect I hope
    President Trump can replace
    Ginsburg in the SC soon.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. However, honestly, one must wonder: “Thirty-Five(!) Terms?!?!”

    Quite honestly, and no matter “how honorably” a particular individual has “served,” I seriously believe that we need to fully confront this simple issue: “how much is enough?” We properly should do this throughout our Government.

    So far, we have actually done this in only one case: the US President is formally limited to two consecutive terms. Beyond this – nothing.

    Without(!) in any way besmirching the honor under which Justice Stevens presumably served his country, I sincerely believe that we now need to impose term limits (and, quite possibly, age limits …) upon every Federal Office that is contemplated under Articles 1-3 of our Constitution.

    “The dynamics of power” under which we now operate, in the absence of such things, are IMHO, in retrospect, “not such a good thing after all.” Let’s talk …

    Liked by 5 people

    • Dave says:

      We Cold War babies grew up dreading a nuclear strike on Washington. Now we wonder what’s taking so long.

      Liked by 7 people

    • Rhoda R says:

      I’ll go further – 10 or 15 years for Civil Service bureaucrats as well.


      • cthulhu says:

        I have suggested that every US Citizen should be able to set foot in Washington, D.C. on 3,000 days over their entire lifetime. Every day you go there, whether to visit the museums, hold elected office, or petition the government, counts against your lifetime total. If the records show you have exceeded 2,900 days, you may still be admitted — but warned about how many days remain. On your 3,001st visit, you’re euthanized.

        It would certainly make those Congressional Recesses more exciting.


  6. listingstarboard says:

    Well past time to revisit “Lifetime appointments” in ANY position that is so powerful.

    Liked by 4 people

    • ristvan says:

      I disagree with respect to federal judges (but not congressional term limits as Watters and Pelosi demonstrate). The Founders were wise. Lifetime judicial appointment ‘while in good standing’ does three things.
      1. Increases presidential nomination and Senate confirmation scrutiny since stakes are higher.
      2. Increases all important judicial independence. Anything less than ‘job for life’ means a judge is eventually thinking about what is next and possibly deciding accordingly.
      3. Increases ability of much higher paid qualified lawyers to take a (big) pay cut in return for lifetime judgeship. Heck, I was never at a legal level anywhere near qualifying for any federal judgeship, yet for over 35 of my near 40 year law/business career earned much more than anyone on SCOTUS.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Rynn69 says:

        ristvan: Agree with all your points, but shouldn’t the dangerous move toward activism in the judiciary change be considered? Did the Founders account for activist vs. constitutionalist judges? The problem today is the failure to follow through with the solution to such pure, unadulterated activism and usurpation of executive branch authority – impeachment.


      • I feel that the term limits for Federal judges (and, Justices) should perhaps be the most generous of all – let’s say, twelve years. They should be eligible for re-appointment covering a potentially lifetime term, and should not face a political process. It can simply be that the Senate re-affirms them. (This would, I submit, adequately satisfy both your “point #2” and my concern.) To me, “judicial independence” is a two-way street.

        “No, no one does this for the money.” 😀


    • DV Meca says:

      The problem with that is the lack of continuity. You don’t want major legal rulings reversed and then re-enacted every few years. Even with the lack of SCOTUS term limits, potential appointments are one of the biggest issues in any Presidential election. Imagine if we knew, for example, that 3 or 4 seats were coming up for replacement in the next few years. At least with the way it is now, rulings have some real heft and only get reversed when there’s overwhelming sentiment that direction. Also, while some justices have drifted left over the past couple of generations, others have developed into more effective, thoughtful jurists. SCOTUS might be the most intellectually demanding government position & justices can keep improving over decades. Clarence Thomas’s judicial philosophy and extensive influence have developed over his quarter-century plus on the court. 8 or 10 years in, he wasn’t close to being the nation’s most influential legal mind and his influence wasn’t appreciably different than any other right-leaning justice (such as Alito). Over the past 10-15 years, he developed his philosophy into the fairly unique (at the time) & tremendously important form of constitutionalism he’s known for today. His network of protégés (both his own former clerks and those he never met who were profoundly influenced by his ideas) also grew exponentially and began to populate judgeships throughout the nation, with one, Gorsuch, now on SCOTUS, and another, Ingraham, now reaching a wide audience on a nightly basis. A disproportionate amount of former Thomas clerks are among Trump’s judicial appointees, which might literally be what saves the country in the long run. I understand the arguments for SCOTUS term limits, but Thomas is a great argument against that idea.


  7. JoeMeek says:

    RBG should follow his example and also voluntarily retire. And so should a few others.

    Liked by 6 people

  8. FL_GUY says:

    I personally believe the United States Constitution was divinely inspired. It is the most unique and liberating document on planet Earth. Stevens constantly ignored the Constitution and in many instances, shredded the Constitution in his rulings and statements. This “judge” has found that he is facing the SUPREME JUDGE. I doubt he will like his eternal sentence. JMHO

    Liked by 5 people

    • Rynn69 says:

      “I personally believe the United States Constitution was divinely inspired.”

      Amen FL_GUY and praise God.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Mac says:

      Yes, I fully agree with that assessment. He’s finding out just exactly where the road paved with good intentions has for a final termination point. Bit warm down there, right, JP?


  9. ristvan says:

    An appropriate Presidential tribute to a long serving Justice.

    However, Justice Stevens two best known opinions, both decided 5-4, were IMO erroneously decided and will eventually have to be significantly narrowed or overturned by SCOTUS.

    Chevron v N.R.D.C. concerned judicial deference to regulatory agency interpretations of ‘vague’ acts of Congress. It held courts cannot scrutinize if the agency interpretation is ‘plausibly reasonable’. The problem is this gives unelected bureaucrats carte blanche, rather than courts stepping in to demand Congress do a better job of expressing the will of the people.

    Massachusetts v E.P.A. held that states can sue regulatory agencies over global warming. The problem is this enables a single politicized state to ‘sue and settle’ in matters of national federal policy. In this case, the MA lawsuit forced EPA to issue its CO2 endangerment finding, which led to the unconstitutional Clean Power Plan. (Not my opinion on CPP constitutionality, rather none other than Harvard’s expert Larry Tribe.)

    Liked by 5 people

  10. 1970novass396 says:

    Curly Bill………”we’ll bye”


    • Dave Mitchell says:

      Go ahead, skin that smoke wagon.
      You gonna do something or just stand there and bleed?
      You tell them I’m coming and hell’s coming with me.
      You’re a daisy if ya do
      Say when.
      Great movie, think I’ll watch it tonight…


  11. Brian in CA4 says:

    I don’t remember Justice Scalia getting this type of treatment/reverence from the DC establishment. They couldn’t put him into the ground soon enough, it appeared. Not even an autopsy…supposedly at the request of his family. Seth Rich’s family also came down with this sudden lack of curiosity. Maybe I’m wrong, but that was my perception.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. boomerbeth says:

    Justice Stephens was disappointed when Trump won the election
    He was a nice gracious man, however.
    Earlier this year, he wrote an op-Ed to rescind the 2nd Amendment.
    He claims he is a traditional conservative; it was the conservatives who veered right, not him!!

    From time to time, he played duplicate bridge with my 96 yo dad in sofla.
    Excellent player.
    But like my dad, Internet challenged!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s