Stephen Wermiel is a fellow in law and government and associate director of the Summer Institute on Law and Government at American University Washington College of Law. Wermiel is also an expert on the life and career of Justice William J. Brennan.
How did you get interested in the Supreme Court?
I guess I was fascinated from the start by law — the impact … and the influence of the courts seemed really [profound] to me.
What are some common myths about constitutional law or the courts?
I think a common misconception is that all laws are politics. The way [judges] decide these issues [is] limited by the facts they’re dealing with.
What can you say about Justice Brennan that most people don’t know about?
I came to believe that the private Justice Brennan was actually a somewhat more cautious and conservative person than the public man. In the 1980s, it became popular [for his critics] to kind of view him as this wild, liberal justice who was enacting his wild, liberal views into the Constitution. And I really think that was not the case. I think in his private life, he had a bit more restrained views.
Can you give an example of that dichotomy?
I don’t think he loved the news media, which he did so much to protect as a justice.
Everyone’s always talking about the president and Congress. Is the Supreme Court the little brother of the three branches of government?
I think it’s the least understood of the three branches. [There’s] a tendency to say, “That’s law — that’s too complicated for people.” I think that’s a huge mistake. There’s a lot of discomfort there — people want to criticize the court and its extraordinary influence on life, but they don’t want to take the time to understand why that’s the case. Kids study how a bill becomes a law, but they don’t understand how the Supreme Court works. I think that’s a mistake. – David Sherfinski
