Justice Stevens and Silly Statutes

The New York Times Magazine has an interesting article on Justice John Paul Stevens written by Jeffrey Rosen. Stevens, who was interviewed for the article, actually said a few things of substance, which makes this the first article from a sitting Supreme Court justice in recent memory that can boast such a claim. I particularly enjoyed when Justice Stevens described Congress's ban on late-term abortions as a "silly statute." I wish more Americans realized how much of what ends up on the Supreme Court's docket is a result of silly and (largely) symbolic legislation. (Too often, the biggest fights in American politics is akin to counting cats in Zanzibar.) Several things I found fascinating (if not altogether surprising):

1. Stevens openly questions the value of unanimity on the Court.
2. Stevens questions whether Brennan's style of lobbying was effective or whether he benefited from four other like-minded justices. (This speaks to the question of how fixed justices are in their preferences.)
3. Stevens fancies himself a conservative despite the degree to which the political spectrum has shifted.
4. Stevens emphasizes how vital the writing process is to parsing difficult questions/problems. Maybe he should try blogging...
5. Stevens believed that some of the most important decisions he makes are with regard to assigning opinions--not writing them.
6. Stevens calls out Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade and states that the doctrine doesn't make sense.
7. Stevens lays out an interesting argument about how to use history in constitutional interpretation. I'm unclear on how taking all of American history into account could be used with much rigor but it is interesting distinction from his originalist colleagues.
8. Finally, Stevens explains why he ruled the way he did in Bush v. Gore (or at least a major influence on his decision) and he points to good old fashion rule of law considerations.