Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals/Dissent Stevens

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Blackmun joins, dissenting.

In my opinion the judicial resources of the Court could be used more effectively by simply denying Martin's petitions than by drafting, entering, and policing the order the Court enters today. The theoretical administrative benefit the Court may derive from an order of this kind is far outweighed by the shadow it casts on the great tradition of open access that characterized the Court's history prior to its unprecedented decisions in In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180 (1989) (per curiam), and In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177 (1991) (per curiam). I continue to adhere to the views expressed in the dissenting opinions filed in those cases, and in the dissenting opinion I filed in Zatko v. California, 502 U.S. 16, 18 (1991) (per curiam). See also ''Talamini v. Allstate Ins. Co.'', 470 U.S. 1067 (1985), appeal dism'd (Stevens, J., concurring).