>> good afternoon. members of the stevens family, members of the court, members of the bar, and friends. this meeting of the bar, disapprove court of the united states has been called to honor the memory of john paul stevens. who served as it associate justice of the supreme court from 1975 to 2010. in addition to his time on the court, justice stephen served his country as a judge on the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit, as counsel to the house judiciary committee, and as a code breaker in the u.s. navy during world war ii. over decades on the back edge, he dedicated his life to the rule of law and the judicial craft. he was a jurist who through this -- exercise independent judgment. guided by experience and the essential values underline the constitution and the american project. he was a person of integrity. blessed with the angular intellect, pragmatic temperament, humble nature, and generative soul. he was a devoted has been, father, grandfather, and great grandfather. a beloved colleague, and inspiring mentor, and an extraordinary figure in american law. the court and this nation of forever better for his service. we all miss him greatly. i want today to express my appreciation to chief judge david barrett and lisa rose burrow who co-chair the arrangement committee for this meeting. and for the members of the committee. stuart baker, pretty a bundle, david debruyne, sarah eisenberg, jeff fisher, to judge pamela harris, justice leondra cougar, georgia louis lineman, nancy model, judge randolph moss, judge alison nathan, skip paul, teresa reed diplo, cliff sloan, and douglas winthrop. i also want to express my gratitude to jamal greene and carol lee who co-chair the resolutions committee, and to the members of that committee. diane eamonn, christopher gruber, daniel farber. jeanne gal breath, all attuned a johnson, trey mackenzie, eduardo, debra pearl scene, george rather grim, adam somma hall, robert shapiro, kate shaw, and sonia west. the meeting today will be chaired by chief george barrett scott harris will be the secretary. i want to turn the podium and the meetings who chief george baron. >> madame sister general, mr. chief justice, so associate justices, members of the stevens family, mr. attorney general, members of the sikh supreme court barr. it's a great honor to be with you all to remember a great man. but in saying that, i cannot help but think it seems in misleading way to describe justice stevens. not because it's inaccurate, but because it does not capture what made him great. that description that emily brings to mind an overpowering person, a larger than life person. justice stevens's greatness, his gift, his example, his superpower was to show the gentleness does not have anything on its own, so it is humility. the most it comes to my mind when i think of him, it has when i first met with him in my interview for clerkship, the timelessness. time seems slower in his presence. as if he had access to a longer time scale that most people do. a sense of a depth of time, how long it runs back, and how far it will run into the future. how important it is in making the decisions of consequence, as justice stevens did for all of professional life, to be aware of the time scale. he was a war hero, a pilot, a superstar law student, and an accomplished tennis player, i can attest from personal observation, an average golfer. the [laughs] , but he was, in all respects, a great person with his twinkle, his decency, his biden just the -- he had his own kind of overpower presence. and the way to gentleness and decency can. just a stephens was an absolutely confident and productive person. he brought more separate opinions that any justice in the history of the court, and he did it with you or clerks he could have had, and while writing the first draft of every opinion. he served on the court for more than three decades. then, as if that were not enough, he upon his retirement wrote three books, he became irregular contribute you for the new york books will -- when asked by colbert himself if there's any decisions that justice stevens regretted, other than this interview, the justice act asked. [laughs] yes, cold air replied. i don't think, so justice stevens said. he gave new meaning to life long learning and to second acts. his last reunion with us was held in the second home in florida, his daughter sue was there to accompany him, as members of the chamber of staff. the more than 100 strong, including those arrested with him when he was on the seventh circuit, of course you loved and we make sure we need to respect. at the event, we held a q&a with the justice, he was then by then think of hearing. his voice, still with the beloved chicago in it, and always soft, even softer than. but his mind was sharp and his wit as well. he had just written his third book. , he was 99 years old at the time. the book ran more than 500 pages. there was one passage in the book that warranted a special inquiry. it was the portion it was you had lavished praise on a particular group of people. his law clerks. this passage we all thought was a surpassing interest. [laughs] it was indeed intensive interrogation. just how great were we? what were our greatest features? these, of course, very un-stephen like questions. in the moment, we can be forgiven to lost sight of his example. we asked him, justice, how did you go about choosing a tremendously gifted group? here, 99, with a cane twist system and walking, the hearing a bit hard, the voice soft but no less chicago in, there was the twinkle, and the perfect stephen-esque answer. case by case, he said. he knew what he was saying. he wanted us to know that he was not a role person. he was a case by case person, a context person, a fox person, a functionalist person, a notion of a less person, a realist person, a leon green person. one sentence, a few words, and a whole philosophy of law and of life. well actually, half of a philosophy. because he was saying in a few words that he was also say every person has a complete work -- after shot person. an independent minded person, a fair competition person, a no one is above the law person, a respect everyone person. without saying that, he also reminded us why he was a person to treasure. in the remarks you will now hear from four of his former clerks, and one young accomplished lawyer who happens to be his granddaughter, we hope you get a sense of what made him the great justice, great judge, and the great person that he was and that he remains to all of us. our first speaker will be the honorable damien williams, the united states attorney from the southern district of new york. and the clerk for justice stevens in the 2008 term. >> it's an honor to stand here in this great hall, and the eulogize a great man. justice john paul stevens. i have two tasks today. first, i have been asked to speak as a representative of the law clerks from the justices final year on the bench. second, i have been asked to reflect on the principle, a principle that is stitched into the justice's life, and in his career of law. in this nation, the law is supreme, and nobody is above it. let's start with the light stuff. i clerk for the justice in a second to last year on the court, by that time, he had seen the law from every conceivable angle. as a kid in chicago, he felt the jagged edge of the law when his father was wrongfully convicted of embezzlement. and experience that nearly ruined his family through and through. he witnessed the laws power to redeem one of the same conviction was overturned on appeal. he fought for our laws in the pacific theater in world war ii. he hung a shingle and practiced the law for years. he helped enforce the law when he investigated corruption in the illinois supreme court. of course, he helped shape the law as a judge and justice on this court for decades. by the time we started our clerkship, justice stevens has seen it all. or so it seemed. now, this was 2008, the days of hope and change. he young lawyer from chicago had been elected president. and a future presidents had been elected vice president. now, one day, the justice walked into the clerks office and stood in the doorway. it became clear that he was not there to discuss a case or a legal issue that was on his mind. instead, he started telling us about something in the law that he had never done. he explained that by tradition, the chief justice swears in the new president. dictates wneither law nor custos who should swear in the new vice president. he explained that all his years on the bench no one had asked him to swear in the new vice president. he turned and went back into his office. we did not know what to do with that. was a thing of founder mark? was it a clue or breadcrumbing that we were supposed to pick up and do something with? we did not know. but we have the law clerks decided all on our own or that it was time for a little off the books activity. his scheme to get joe biden to ask justice stevens to swear him in. now, if you think i'm about to describe how our conspiracy works and who joined it, you would be wrong. we're quite wrong, as justin stevens would have put it. let's just say that a few weeks later, that phone rang in chambers. janice hawley answered it. we were in the rv room and can hear. oh, it is joe biden on the phone. oh, he wants to speak with justice stevens. we waited. a few minutes later, justice stevens walks into the clerk's office, stood in the doorway, and with a smile on his face said wouldn't you know? joe biden just called me and asked to swear him in as the next vice president. then he turned and went back into his office. he never asked us if we had a hand in that coming together. but if he had, we obviously, for obviously would have pled the fifth. one more story. later in our clerkship, the justice gathered the law clerks into the office to talk about hiring a new batch of law clerks. and they justice began to talk about in the term, how it was going, and how he felt he was doing. he told us that unlike prior years, he was not planning on hiring before complement a full -- four walk lurks, instead, he would hire just one. it was time. even though we knew we were witnessing a significant moment in history, everything about it was classic justice stevens. low-key. plainspoken. humble. even when closing the final chapter in his service to the nation, a body of service that consistently sought to preserve and protect of the rule of law. now, the rule of law and the supremacy of the law were uncontested for much of the justices life, they were assumed to be true. animated so much of his personal story, his rise to this court, and the work on the court. even though the justice passed away less than three years ago, you cannot possibly measure the distance between then and now in years. so much as happened. so much is noah for debate. and so much of that debate is coarse and cheap. for justice stevens, january 6th was just a date. george floyd was just a name, and another land war in europe with inconceivable. and on, and on, and on. i think we can all agree that justice john paul stevens was a man for all seasons. i often find myself wondering what he would make of this season. our nation stands on troubled soil today. that is a fact. justice stevens did not believe in airbrushing facts. let's not do that. i think we all know that before the justice passed, there was an urgency in his writings. both in his dissent and final years on the bench and also in some of the works he offered in retirement. it was not an abandonment of hope, but instead a questioning of the durability of certain principles that he thought were fundamental and true. i am sure the past few years would have upset him, but still, i do not think he would have given up hope. nor should we. because his life was all the testimony we need to know that great games could grow from troubled soil. this was a man from chicago, a city that is best known for its cubs and it's corruption. this is a man whose family endured injustice and the great depression. this is a man who went to war to defend democracy. or theout of all of that, emerge man who was chosen for the federal bench because of his fears, independence, and integrity. a man who was chosen for this court because of his unimpeachable character. corruption. injustice. the prussian. war. why didn't. these are not small things, these are not easy things, these are not happy things. but they are the soil in which he grew. they explained him. and how we as a nation got him. his personal story also explains his belief, a belief that iran bone deep, that in this country the law is supreme and applies to all. the powerful under the powerless. rich and poor. friend and so. because of him, the president, despite his high office is not immune to sue. it is that the same belief, the unshakable belief in the supremacy of the law, no one is above, it led him to dislike official immunity of all sorts. especially the most notorious of them. all state sovereign immunity, a doctor in the he described as, a quote, venus of all legal fictions. he was firm in his view that english common law principles did not make the trip across the atlantic. that is how he views the world at a justice, but also how he lived his life. gentle and kind to all, humble and unassuming with all. to borrow from kipling, he walked with kings and queens but never lost his comment touch. this was a great man that was also a good man. talking to him makes me miss him even more. and miss the days when we had him. even though we cannot ask him what he would make of these days and these times, i'm sure if he was here, he would do what he did when we clerked for him, that is the first ask us what we think. then he would listen patiently, because he believed in us, and was proud of us. the justice is gone. and the times, yes, have changed. but the sturdy, stately, beautiful legacy that he built is still here. it is in this room. it is in his granddaughter hannah. it's been us. it's in the light that he breed into the law for the nation he loved. and i believe that justice stephens would expect us, the keepers of his legacy, to forge ahead to not lose faith, and to summon our better angels. john a poll stevens's, and will always be, one of those angels. >> thank you, they mean. the next speaker is professor eduardo -- the president at seattle university and a clerk for justice stevens in the 2000 term. >> good law clerks pay close attention to the justices passions. as a stephens clerk in the 2000 term, i quickly learned about several things that the justice held dear. one was golf. he loved all sports, to be sure, especially the cubs, but golf held a special place in the justice stevens halt. he was devoted, some may say an obsessive follower of professional golf. during our term at the court, computer terminals were not connected to the internet, security reasons, i guess, each of us has a symptom goal -- if you wanted to use the internet, you have to go to that machine. if my kids are watching online, i'm talking about the dark ages, before smartphones and streaming video. one of my regular duties as a law clerk was to log on to the internet computer every few days to check on justice stephen's fantasy golf standings. justice stevens also loved playing golf, monday morning's in chambers often began with the justice offering self deprecating accounts of the week engulfed exploits. but the justice did not confined his golf -- once, michael clerk andy segel walked in on justice stephen and justice o'connor casting the putting field on the practice green that he kept inside of his office. in a more serious vein, another passion of justice stevens was fairness, as an antitrust lawyer he had a deep respect for the power of competition to drive innovation, and despite being an all-nature competitor, and perhaps precisely because of that, he richly appreciated the importance of level playing field and provide everyone with the opportunity to cook to compete. one final thing i will mention that justice stevens loved, it quickly became apparent to me and to my co-clerks that justice stevens plainly, or as the justice may have said, pellucid lee relished jousting with the justice. although joe both men possessed singularly brilliant legal mind. their footnote battles were ones of legends. one of the many issues in which they found themselves in profound disagreement was the very meaning of fairness itself. for justice scalia, these attribute of fairness was always for more equal treatment. for justice stevens, in contrast, fairness was a complex and contextual concept. resisted too rigid characterization. i'm questions ranging from affirmative action to criminal justice, to antitrust law. justice stevens favorite accounts of fairness to just for decision-makers -- in the treatment of -- flexibility, and above all, judgment. they were essential for fairness in his sense. tellingly, one of justice stevens trademarked adjectives for a decision-making he found to fall short in this regard for us to call it wooden. if a case combined questions of fairness and equal treatment, compelling subject matter, and justice scalia on the other side, justice stevens was sure to be fully engaged. i like this spend the rest of my brief remarks afternoon talking about the blockbuster case for the 2000 term that score that particular hat trick. no, not that case. not supposed to cite that one. the case i have a mind, the one i had at minus pga tour versus martin. casey martin with a professional golfer that suffers from a rare circulatory disorder that obstructs the flow of blood in his right leg. for more than, walking creates a risk of hemorrhaging, blood clots or worse. and college and competition to qualify for the pga tour, he was allowed to use a golf cart. when he earned his spot on the pga tour he asked for permission to continue doing so, something that is allowed by the rules of the game of golf, but not by pga special growers governing the tournament. the pga refused, waving the so-called walking role would fundamentally alter the nature of the tournament play, and give martin an unfair advantage. since walking injected the factor of fatigue. into pga competition. so martin said with the -- and the district court ruled in his favor of an art circuit agreed, the petition presented fact bound era correction, the clerks were caught off guard when the supreme court ran its survey. when my co-clerks joe thai and annie segel asked justices givens about it, he explained that sometimes the court used to take a case just because it is fun to make up. for all the cases. ultimately, seven justices decided with martin, with only justices scully and thomas dissenting, when the chief justice assange opinion with justice stevens, he was positively giddy. fairness, golf and scalia and dissent, the trifecta. i can imagine no case more perfectly designed to bring out the essential elements of justice stevens approach to fairness and judicial decision-making. justice stevens opinion for the court was trademark gps. he began with a careful textual analysis of the a.d.a., including a reference to congress's broad intent and an act in the statute, and the legislative history pierre. one purpose of the a.d.a. he observed, was to force the reevaluation of long-standing practices that had the effect of exclusion colluding disabled people when reasonable accommodations would prevent that. fairness requires just the sorts of individualized -- references to the way things have always been. done as usual, justice stevens took extremely seriously the courts factual findings, particularly it's finding that the fatigue martin insurers with playing with his disability, even while writing in a golf cart, was undeniably greater than the fatigue that other competitors experienced from courts. this meant that martin derive no -- to competitive -- on the pga's account of the reasons behind -- to my mind, the persuasive heart of justice stephen's opinion was his takedown of the notion that walking over that matter physical exertion isn't any sense essential to the game of golf, even at the professional level. golf, he explained, is a low intensity activity. but not content with simply stating one for many of us is the obvious. he observed that the average golfer expense fewer than 500 calories walking an 18 hole course pointing out that even at minimal exertion is spread over a five hour period that includes many opportunities for rest and refreshment. pierre finally, justice stevens took note of the many exceptions that the pga already makes to the rule. in qualifying play, but also in professional play when necessary for logistical reasons. given his overall context, refusing to allow casey martin to write and the golf cart was the antithesis of fairness, representing the kind of rigid and exclusionary -- on formal legal treatment for no good reason that the a.d.a. was designed to prevent. for justice scalia in dissent, the case was an easy one. the very nature of competitive sport, he said, is the measurement by uniform rules of unevenly distributed excellence. this unequal distribution is precisely what determines winners and losers. and artificially, to even out that distribution is to destroy the game. of course we know from countless other cases, and from their extra writings that this conflict between just a stephens contextual approach to fairness and justice scalia's rigid insistence on equal treatment was not merely disagreement about fairness in the game of golf. it reflected a far more fundamental disagreement about what constitutes fairness in the game of life. pga versus martin exemplifies justice stevens passion for fairness as well as his appreciation for context, it's comfort with complexity and his respect for the virtue of judgment. he was also a fun case about golf. it was justice stevens at his very fine us. we miss him big. >> and thank you. our next speaker is the thank you, eduardo. our next speaker is the honorable judge on the district of columbia court of appeals and clerk for justice stevens in the 1993 term. >> hi, everyone. this is where. i feel like i should unmoved myself or something. unmute myself. it is hard to even begin to capture justice stevens in a few words. michael clerk and lifelong friend, sean donahue, during an interview on c-span once tried. he called him a quote, deeply curious person. a phrase that perhaps raises more questions than answers. i would like to focus on is something of keen interest to me as i strive and every day failed to come close to the example that justice stephen set. that is, justice stevens take on what it means to be a judge. we had strong feelings on the subject and a deep respect for the rule of judges. justice stevens wanted the public to have confidence in the even handedness of the courts. he cared about transparency. he cared and he made sure we cared about process. beyond perception, he cared about getting it right. to that end, he was unwavering lee open minded. he wanted to consider a range of use, including for some reason, hours. in soliciting those views, justice stevens put people at ease. it was great if you happened to be completely and awe of the large marble building he worked in and intimidated by most of the people in it. when justice stevens asked us questions about the cases we were preparing, he would often preface it by saying, if you know, it was fine if you didn't, of course, but we would quickly figure it out. for someone who cracked enemy military codes and one bronze stars and sat on the supreme court of the united states, he was a remarkably down to earth, easy to talk to, straightforward. when i interviewed with him for the clerkship, he confused me greatly by informing me at the end of the interview that however things turned out, i like you. unfamiliar with his forthrightness, i was absolutely certain that man, i was not getting the job. and remember justice stevens going through amazing lengths to reserve judgment on issues in a case until he had read everything and heard oral argument. on one occasion, he reprimanded one of us. okay, it was me. when we mention that the group of law clerks who got together to discuss a case that was coming up for argument, all of them had the same view of the threshold issue in the case. it turns out justice stevens definitely did not want to know that. he did not want to be swayed. big writing his own first drafts and staying out of the -- were also ways of preserving an independence that he viewed as so imperative. perhaps the clearest manifestation of his independence was his penchant for writing separately. we all have our favorite stevens concurrence is and the sense. but one of mine, perhaps in part because of my prior life as a public defender before i became a judge, is his concurrent to kyle versus with. lead there, the court held 5 to 4, than a man's conviction and death sentence should be vacated, where the cumulative effect of the government's violations of -- versus marilyn, might well have been outcome determinative. justice scalia wrote a searing dissent arguing that the case was to fact bound to have even warranted the courts review in the first place. justice stevens joined the majority, but he wrote separately to respond to justice scalia as he loves to do. what's stands out about his concurrence to me was his insistence that there are times when even supreme court justices have to delve into those dusty record boxes, and decide something inherently factual, like whether a suppression of evidence made a difference at a trial. justice stevens took that deep dive in kyle, and based on his, quote, independent review of the case, a case where brady violations were repeated and flagrant, where the jury in the first trial had that locked, where he had significant doubts about curtis -- he did not think he was doing anything extraordinary. he simply thought it was his job. he wrote that our duty to administer justices occasionally requires business busy judges to engage in facts of the case. even though our labours may not provide posterity with a newly minted rule of law. particularly given the popular it of capital punishment, he concluded, i cannot agree that our position in the judicial hierarchy makes such review inappropriate. sometimes the performance of an unpleasant duty conveys a message more significant then even the most penetrating legal analysis. the flipside of justice stevens's broad view of the supreme court's own role in correcting errors that are within the courts purview is his insistence that the court not overextend its reach two issues not within its purview. for example, and i did not get the memo that we were not supposed to mention this, in his dissent in bush versus gore, in defending the florida supreme court's own interpretation of the states legislatures intent in its election laws, justice stevens rejected when he saw as a petitioners, quote, un-stated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote were to proceed. such confidence in those courts and the people who ran them was, he wrote, the true backbone of the rule of law. and he of course waited -- ended on a weighty note. although we may never know with complete certainty, the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. it is the nation's confidence and the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. again, what was also perfectly clear to justice stevens was that in that case, the florida supreme court simply did with courts do. i would like to end with a quote from another native son of illinois, the poet carl sandburg. exactly 100 years ago this month, in his poem, washington monument at night, sandburg wrote this, the republic is a dream. nothing happens unless first adrienne dog. the reason justice stevens had respect for the rule of law and for the rule of the judge is not that he believed our legal institutions were perfect, or even highly functional, but it is that he knew that these institutions, like the republic itself, we're capable of being great, and we're worth fighting for to make them great. and i could not agree more with damian. if we want to honor justice stephen's legacy, we will continue that work ourselves. >> thank you. our next s >> thank you, corrine beckwith. our next speaker is skip paul. he was an adviser in the court of justice stevens during his term. >> good afternoon. i feel it is important to correct the record. chief church barren mentioned something about justice stevens scoff abilities. i've played a lot of golf in my life, but the last game i played with justice stevens, in fact, the last year of his life, was by far the best game, the best performance by a golfer at the age of 99 i have ever seen. to turn the clock back a bit, late morning on the friday after thanksgiving in 1975, the chicago federal courthouse was closed. judge stevens and i were catching up on some backlog when the phone rang, interrupting our work. it was president ford calling to inform judge stevens that he was announcing the nomination of the supreme court later that afternoon. the judge stepped into our office hug and told us the exciting news, and said it was to be strictly confidential until late that afternoon. however, he was going to spend some time taking a walk around chicago, starting down by the institute. judge stevens mind must have been full of chicago memories as he hit it out of the federal building walking down to the lake front and reflection back on the chicago skyline, he would remember his years of chicago education from grade school and undergraduate home at the university of chicago through northwestern law school. also in that downtown skyline he would see the location of the investigation a led by him as a private citizen. this investigation resulted in the removal of two justices from that court. it was a bold result. lawyers serving the pub he revealed his the belief depend on the lawyers -- and nonpartisan way. the investigation public service propelled the lawyer john paula stevens to an appointment on the seventh circuit. hopefully on that lock, his joy was not broken. and his memories were not determined sour by his eyes looking to the western horizon in the skies above a brutally field. the home of his beloved of the realization that he would be leaving now. just three weeks after that walk, you would be confirmed unanimously by the senate. six weeks after that call by president ford, nellie pits and i were in washington moving to the new state chambers, with a stack of work aided by the -- justice douglass shamer. the warm welcome for justice is stevens was actually welcomed back, he was welcomed back to the rock luge clerk returning to the 1947 term, his clerkship and close relationship with the justice, the former law school dean, formed the foundation of the fabric of stevens priority on his own mentorship of his clerks. after my clerkship, i practice law for a short time and justice stevens reportedly told me actually from the law, he went to a career in the entertainment business. a risky should have known hire a law clerk from los angeles. all through the 40 years after my clerkship, i never made an important life decision, in important business decision without his thoughtful and caring advice. one funny thing always happened when i came here for that advice, regardless of my age, when i was mid 40s, 50s, or 60s, i'm a little older than that now, when sitting in the chambers and the conversation started, i became a 25 year old a law clerk. stephens became the boss. time mustard still in his mentorships. after 20 years on the court, justice stevens became a discussion with some of his four former clerks about his own legacy. his thinking and direction were classic stevens. guided by humility, a dedication of public interest, and they believe in mentorship. the stephens public interest fellowship were launched at northwestern in 1996. initially funded by clerks and first expanded into the law schools where clerks were on faculties, we can guide the evolution of the model. where justice stevens retired in 2010, the stevens foundation was formed to expand the existing public interest program. to date, 788 fellowships have been granted. and that foundation is operating in 40 law schools. we fellowships encourages support to law students to pursue work and public interest. the summer, there will be 150 of stevens public interest fellows in law schools. after graduation, the track record of the stevens fellows going in and pursuing careers and public interest is 74%. and the stevens fellowships presently is a second largest summer public fellowship in the country. stevens fellows has become the next generations and extension of the stephen clark family, his gift to us of mentorship, and produced a legacy of mentorship. and a show dedication to the important of supporting young lawyers and pursuing public abuse and public interest. one thing has become clear, as with justice stevens own appointment, his stevens clerkship's for a lifetime. thank you. >> skip reminded me i was wrong, i was coming up here. let the record reflect that he was a better than average golfer. thank you, skip. our next speaker is hannah mullin, who is a clinical fellow at georgetown university law center. and justice stevens's granddaughter. >> good afternoon. as it has been mentioned, i have i am the sixth of justice stevens's nine grandchildren, perhaps and probably, the only one foolish enough, or lucky enough, to follow him into the law. my grandfather was a great justice and a great person. he was also the greatest grandpa in the world. he was fun, in florida, he swung into the ocean and built sandcastles with us. we faced off for hours playing board games, trading victories in scrabble and backgammon till my mother begged as to come to dinner, the food was getting cold. my grandpa loved as, he showed it. he brought my sister and me sugar cookies from our favorite bakery. he was a patron of the elementary school corps concerts. we would beat him at his old time grandpa isms like, isn't that something? when one of us brought something that a good report card or one electron championship. grandpa treated his grandchildren as one of the intellectual and athletic equals. it sounds ridiculous, it is true. he would gloat after hitting crossed tables for hands in ping-pong. before backpacking trip, i took as a teenager, he gave me a copy of a sense and sensibility so we can discuss it when i return from the woods. i think he was disappointed with jane austin was not for me. when i enrolled in law school, grandpa began giving the law review articles to read so we can talk about them over his morning cup of coffee. in this article, they were written by his former clerks, he was so proud of all of you. he liked reading jean austin, but not nearly as reading all of you. grappa did not hold forth during the intergenerational book clubs. he asked what i thought, and listened. even though i knew so little. he was the most brilliant person i have ever met. and yet, he can make the people around me brighter rather than dimmer in his presence. i miss grandpa every day. since graduating from law school, and becoming a civil rights lawyer, i have had the strange privilege of becoming more familiar with a different side of the man i knew or loved. the jury's justice stevens. every time i read one of justice stevens's opinions, i see another thing i loved about my grandpa. for example, as has already been discussed, my grandfather is well known to his attention to the record in each individual case. he is described as a judges judge who looked at each case on its merits. grandpa sweated the small stuff off of the bench to. he remembered the names of my elementary school classmates. he kept strawberry ice cream and his freezer so that my sister, who did not share his love of chocolate, we always have a desert she enjoyed. it is easy to knock neurosis, but for grandpa, attention to detail was a form of love. of seeing what was distinct about a person and their circumstances. it made him friends everywhere he warned, even among people who disagreed with him. i smile knowingly, when i read an opinion like grandpas partial concurrence in illinois, a fourth amendment case asked whether someone's unprovoked flight from elise was suspiciously suspicious to justify a terry stop. in his opinion, grandpa praised the majority -- for rejecting a per se role, and explained why he believed the facts in that case did not support a finding of reasonable suspicion. i admire grandpas opinion in war a low because he took a special care to explain the different people may react to police differently. even when they are not doing anything wrong. he pointed out that innocent people, depending on their circumstances, could reasonably view police as a sign that dangerous near. or perhaps even fear the police themselves. the fact that each individual case he urged, should determine whether reasonable suspicion existed. i am similarly filled with nostalgia when i read when i'm grandpas many separate solo opinions. a personal favorite is his dissent's coffee harris, if you are looking from late reading later. grandpa did what he thought was right, even when most people thought he was wrong. i mean, the guy ate apple pie for break breakfast and war bow ties to work, he was not afraid of standing out in a crowd. and he was not afraid of speaking his mind either. anyone who has written a college thesis knows how it feels to have your whole family pre-issue that they are probably not going to read. grappa, on the other hand, read all 30,000 words of my senior thesis and told me why i he thought i was wrong. [laughs] i never felt more kinship with justice scalia that in that moment. in being fully himself, he showed us that we can be ourselves to. the reason i love the grandpas opinions is because they showed he was the same man on the bench and at the coffee table. tenacious and athletic and observant and funny. his belief and spirited competition between equals is what made him eight bullies. he strove to see each person and their circumstances are unique. viewing him with instinctive sympathy for the underdog. one i advocate for my clients, i often find myself stating my grandfather's opinions. i think that is the best way we can honor him. by using his words to try to do good. i moved to note that generations of lawyers will continue to get to know him, and inevitably come to love him, through the words you left behind. i hope we make him proud. >> thank you, hannah. i want to invite teresa -- who is general counsel for the home depot. he's she clerked for justin stevens and the 1987 term. to join me to move the adoption of the resolutions to be presented to the court. >> thank you, david. thank you to all of the logistics spoken today. as you gleaned from their remarks, justice stevens was a remarkable man and a remarkable interest. all of us, even if he had not been a justice of the united states supreme court, would have been just as proud to work with him, would have been just as enriched by his intellect, his professionalism, his love for his country and its constitution, his sense of fairness, his devotion to the protection of liberty, his gentle good humor, and his humility. justice stevens was a patriot and a guardian. having meritoriously served this country in war, he had a special regard to what this nation stands for. as navy chaplain captain junior milan a, who is with us today, said in honoring the justice as he lays in repose in this hall. he was indeed a greek man from our greatest generation. who faithfully answered the call to serve our country when we, the people, needed him most. in texas b johnson, justice stevens famously descended to the court -- barring desecration of the flag. he said, the american flag is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling colonies into a world power. it is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and goodwill. this statement reflects justice stevens's deep devotion to this country as itself a beacon of freedom. equal opportunity. religious tolerance. and good will. it was not the flag alone, but this country he could not bear to see desecrated. justices stevens was resolute and we've, going without fear or restraint where facts and law let him, with no ambition to tilt the skills to suit his ends, or to incline future decisions to his pleasure a preferences. for this reason, he has proved a conundrum for constitutional scholars -- that would've allowed the successful prediction of how he might decide a particular case or type of case. it may be that justice stevens will face history as an enigma and define any characterization. i believe that his record of dedicated and faithful service to this nation and the rule of law will force as to create a new category. not liberal, not conservative, but simply impartial. the committee on resolutions has prepared resolution summarizing justice evens many constitution to the nation and its laws, and you have its work before you. together, with the community co-chairs, jamal greene and carol ali, i have the honor to move their adoption. >> thank you, teresa. the resolutions are now -- if adopted they will be presented to the court by the solicitor general. i don't put the resolutions to a vote. on the favor of adopting the resolutions plea signify by saying says aye. >> aye. no one is a post. the resolution is declared adopted in this completes our work here. i want to say in closing that the justice stevens association with the -- world war ii, when first he served here as a justice, read ledge, it spends the time that he argued here is a leading lawyer in chicago and it includes of course the time he first took the bench or is a justice in 1975. and the three plus decades that followed. it was always an institution that he admired and cherished and we interned admired and church him. before we proceed to the court session, i would like to think counselor to the chief justice jeffrey veneer, marshall gayle, courtney -- the court officer colleagues and their staffs for helping us with this very meaningful proceeding. thank you. [background noises] : : : [background sounds] watch the hearing before the house judiciary committee at 9:30 pm eastern on c-span two. on c-span now, our free mobile video app or on line at c-span dot org. next, testimony on the current housing market and recent impact on home prices. during your hearing before the house, financial services committee. this is two hours and 45 minutes. >> this hearing is entitled boom and bust. inequality, home ownership and the long term impacts of the hot housing market. i now recognize myself lead to give an opening statement. as