According to friends and acquaintances, Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter was a man from another century. The only argument was whether he was from eighteenth or nineteenth century. The intensely private Souter often eschewed modern technology. I am not referring to laptops or Mp3 players but rather electricity!
Souter is a classis ascetic. He never mows his lawn (nor hires someone else to mow it), lives in the small, old house he grew up in that is in need of a fresh coat of paint, drives an old, deteriorating car and lived with his mother until her death. Souter typically enjoys a lunch of yogurt and one apple. Never one to waste, he devours the entire apple including the core and seeds.
Souter loathes D.C. and has referred to it as the worst city in the nation. This hardly stands as a revelation to legal scholars. He makes a hasty retreat to his native New Hampshire at the end of every Supreme Court session.
Of course, Souter is anathema to conservatives. A Republican appointee who consistently votes with the Court’s liberal bloc, Souter’s “conversion “has always rankled conservatives. What caused him to change?
Actually, Souter did not leave the Republican Party as much as it left him. The Bush Administration appointed him in 1990 specifically because he had little or no recorded opinion regarding hot button issues such as abortion or affirmative action. President Bush wanted to avoid the public skewering experienced by his predecessor Ronald Reagan during the Robert Bork confirmation hearings.
The White House chose Souter over the other finalist (a fiery, conservative federal judge from Texas named Edith Jones) based on his thin record on national issues and assurances from New Hampshire Republicans such as Warren Rudman that he was indeed conservative. Of course, insiders and White House aides would later accuse Souter of pulling the wool over the entire party in pursuit of the coveted nomination.
Therefore, it is hard to say Souter lurched leftward on national legal issues since there is scant evidence that he ever held positions, conservative or otherwise, regarding these issues. Souter also mentioned during his confirmation hearings that he had great admiration for John Marshall Harlan. Harlan, an Eisenhower appointee, was a conservative who cherished tradition and stability. He also that government had a tendency to be too intrusive upon people’s lives and privacy.
Basically, Souter is a different kind of conservative. He is a New England/northeastern Republican (a vanishing breed to be sure) who sides with legal tradition. The legal tradition he inherited included Roe v. Wade. It also included a respect for the Court as an institution and the law over politics which dictated the Supreme Court’s rejection of Bush v. Gore.
Very interesting. He sounds like my man Adam Smith who also lived with his mother.
ReplyDeleteI eat the entire apple much like him as well, and my yard probably also looks like it needs to be mowed!
I would say - let the games begin - with regard to the upcoming replacement nomination, but given that there is no opposition to speak of in Congress, it's hard to see any games upcoming. Almost anyone nominated will probably get through, and that is scary.
I, for one, feel a sense of tension: 1) I'm afraid as well as what kind of havoc a pro-choice justice will wreck on the Supreme Court; and yet 2) I am bothered and annoyed that it has come to this. There was a time before the nomination of Robert Bork--a real legal scholar, when judicial nominations were not quasi-legislative elections. They were intended to be above that, weren't they?
ReplyDeleteThat is a very perceptive point, Philip. While this term gives me tired head, Bork was the "tipping point" for Supreme Court nominations. However, the Thomas hearings brought the full force of the media and its soap opera approach to reporting.
ReplyDeleteI would opine that those two confirmation hearings combined to give us what we have today. Remember, Bush chose Souter as a "stealth" candidate with little controversy.
I will post on the nominations process in the near future. However, Souter has left his retirement a bit open-ended.
Of course, The White House is most assuredly vetting candidates as we speak so I will have something on the probable candidates in the near future.
One more thought. You are correct Jekabs that little stands in the way of Obama choosing who he wants. Neither the Judiciary Committee or the full Senate will stand as real barriers.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, Souter was pro-choice and a fully functioning member of the Court's liberal bloc. It is not like Obama will be replacing Scalia or Thomas.
So the balance should not change drastically. At least not now. Of course, if some of the elder justices decide that they miss Souter and want to follow his example, then things might change more drastically.
ReplyDeleteThere is an issue in here somewhere about the true role of law and courts from a Christian perspective. It seems to me, that the true role of law is related to negative freedoms (not "empathy"!); am I amiss?