Remembering Souter … for what?
posted at 12:02 pm on May 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Justice David Souter announced his retirement this week, and the entirety of the media coverage focused on Barack Obama and the pressure of his selection, the Republicans for their potential for forcing Obama to moderate his selection, and the various pressure groups that want their say on who gets the Supreme Court seat. The media paid very little attention to Souter himself. When Sandra Day O’Connor retired and when William Rehnquist died, their big cases and opinions got renewed attention and the media spoke about their legacies on the American system of law and justice.
Not with Souter, and perhaps for good reason. USA Today attempted to cover Souter’s career, but could only manage a Flash-based timeline with an embarrassing four cases, comprising none in which Souter authored a memorable opinion. In fact, all four entries start off, “Souter joined …” In the USA Today follow-up, the best they can add is that Souter seemed to ask a lot of questions lately:
In recent terms, the usually reserved Souter has been especially active on the bench. This week he was among the most aggressive questioners of a lawyer challenging the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Conservatives love to aim ire at Souter for being a liberal after George H. W. Bush’s appointment, but that’s much less Souter’s issue than Poppy’s, and John Sununu’s. Liberals love his reliable vote. Other than that, what has Souter added to the court? The rest of his colleagues have written memorable, quotable opinions, in the majority and the minority. Even John Roberts, who just joined the court, has established a track record of intellectual heft, and Alito has begun to do so.
In reviewing almost two decades on the Supreme Court, David Souter appears to have carved out a career as a Supreme non-entity. Even in the decision that created the most personal attention for him, the Kelo eminent-domain decision, the attention didn’t come from any brilliant Souter erudition on the topic but from an effort to have his home confiscated under Kelo by people in New Hampshire in order to make a point.
Can anyone point to anything significant done by David Souter over the last 19 years, other than show up?
Update: Gabriel Malor at AOS e-mails the only significant case he recalls in Souter’s SCOTUS career, McCreary County v ACLU, in which Souter wrote the opinion that ruled a display of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse unconstitutional.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I’ll remember him as a symbol of how ineffectual G.W.H. Bush was.
Realist on May 2, 2009 at 12:05 PM
I cannot think of one.
Gothguy on May 2, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Yes.
Excellent case in point for the results of tolerance for RINOs.
Saltysam on May 2, 2009 at 12:10 PM
We’re talking “significant” here, not “ineffectual”.
unclesmrgol on May 2, 2009 at 12:10 PM
I remember that H.W. was considering Edith Jones for this seat, who was very young at the time. She would’ve been great, and Casey would then have overruled Roe. But H.W. listened to that joke Warren Rudman, who was a liberal, and we got a banal white liberal guy who purposefully retired during a democratic administration. Good riddance to him. He was never going to retire during a Republican admin anyway; if Mac won, he would’ve kept on going, so don’t feel bad on this one.
IR-MN on May 2, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Probably for the best.
If a Republican was going to make a Supreme Court selection mistake this monumental, it’s better he just sit in the shadows and not do anything big.
12thMonkey on May 2, 2009 at 12:12 PM
I thought the US Constitution was our common legacy, and judicial activism was a problem. It turns out now every justice now has to leave a memorable trail, which implies that things should somehow be different after him than they were before him.
Provided his job is to simply uphold the existing laws of the land, why would anyone other than shallow simpletons demand a legacy from a SC Justice?
radiofreevillage on May 2, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Souter was a “back-bencher” on the nations highest bench.
thomasaur on May 2, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Why, for being an ingrate back-stabber of coarse!
TheBigOldDog on May 2, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Well, if the choice is between a liberal justice who “moved” the Court or law to the left with his powerful or groundbreaking opinions or a liberal justice who rubber-stamped the liberal decision, I’d prefer the former.
It’s reported that Justice Brennan used to seed opinions with obscure or seemingly irrelevant passages or footnotes that he would later use in other rulings to push the law further left.
Which is more problematic?
SteveMG on May 2, 2009 at 12:17 PM
A jurist in the mold of Obama the legislator and executive, voting “Present”
BadDogMN on May 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Correction: I’d prefer the latter, that is.
SteveMG on May 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Yeah, but his book about how hateful Scalia, Thomas and Roberts are will sell millions. Oprah, TheView, and Larry King are in his future. (Letterman will have to wait).
Limerick on May 2, 2009 at 12:23 PM
I don’t know if they are more “hateful”. But if they leave a “legacy” then clearly the charge of judicial activism applies to them more than it does to Souter.
radiofreevillage on May 2, 2009 at 12:27 PM
He never wore pants under the robe……..?
Seven Percent Solution on May 2, 2009 at 12:28 PM
He will be remembered for…….um, remembered for…..for…….
David Souter: EPIC FAIL
thebrokenrattle on May 2, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Isn’t it interesting that Souter, in his official press release said “Now that Obama is President, I can retire”…
Politics on the bench. Huh? Wha?
He never wanted to be there and should have never been there, hence Ed’s opinion – he never did a damn thing but take up a “left” puppet slot.
Odie1941 on May 2, 2009 at 12:29 PM
I was asking myself the same question…aside from being a certain liberal vote, what had the fellow ever done?
JIMV on May 2, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Souter was an invisible judge who became an invisible justice.
Not everyone has to end up with a legacy.
myrenovations on May 2, 2009 at 12:29 PM
I’ll wait to see if he gets a TV show where he decides small claims crap.
SouthernGent on May 2, 2009 at 12:29 PM
The Franklin Pierce of the Supreme Court.
Mr. D on May 2, 2009 at 12:39 PM
This is how I remember Souter, from the Kelo decision, and the attempt to create a Lost Liberty Hotel and the Just Desserts Restaurant:
Justice Souter’s vote in the “Kelo vs. City of New London” decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter’s home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called “The Lost Liberty Hotel” will feature the “Just Desserts Café” and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon’s Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
“This is not a prank” said Clements, “The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development.”
Peggy Snow Cahill on May 2, 2009 at 12:40 PM
As will I, Peggy Snow Cahill, as will I.
Saltysam on May 2, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Yeah. He retired.
bluelightbrigade on May 2, 2009 at 12:49 PM
I just hope Souter’s property is taken by eminent domain and a gigantic Mall of the Americas that covers every inch of it is built there.
He can retire in the basement.
Speakup on May 2, 2009 at 12:54 PM
I remember him for his statements on using International or European law instead of the Constitution! But he wasn’t a leader on that either, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg are out front.
Christian Conservative on May 2, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Fitting. The seat vacated by the intellectually-empty Souter will be selected by the Empty Suit
phreshone on May 2, 2009 at 1:03 PM
The Grokster file sharing case is one that comes to mind. MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005).
It was 9-0 opinion written by him. It was surprising that Souter wrote the opinion given he has Zero knowledge of technology, he doesn’t own a cell phone or a television.
uabalumn07 on May 2, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Sounds a lot like Clarence Thomas’s career so far. I can never figure out why he’s a hero to you guys.
crr6 on May 2, 2009 at 1:05 PM
He’ll always be remembered as “the other guy” Bush Sr. appointed to the supreme court.
jaboba on May 2, 2009 at 1:05 PM
The ‘Arlen Spector’ of Supreme Court justices. Can anybody say ‘RINO’?
savvydude on May 2, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Isn’t this is same criticism liberals lodge at Thomas? When Thomas is gone from the court, are you going to say the same thing?
Being a vote on the court is an accomplishment in and of itself. True, Souter will be one of the more forgettable justices, but that alone is no reason for sniping. If you think he really didn’t do “anything significant,” ask yourself: What if George H.W. Bush had appointed a strict constructionist who “just showed up” instead of Souter? Our legal landscape would look much different today.
calbear on May 2, 2009 at 1:11 PM
In-the-closet Souter will soon be out of the closet ala Kelly McGillis )))
Mister Ghost on May 2, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Pretty clueless, ain’t ya? One can leave a legacy of upholding constitutional values and strict constructionism. Unfortunately, in this day of anti-constitutional judicial activists, writing opinions that uphold constitutional construction are more noteworthy than they should be.
Scalia’s writings will be noteworthy and a legacy not because of activism, but because of the clear, concise definition of constitutional limits that they contain. Even his dissenting views (such as the McCain-Feingold destruction of the first amendment) clearly define original intent and what the court should have ruled.
So, yes, one can have a legacy without being an activist.
AZfederalist on May 2, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Your point is well taken, but ideology aside, I think the primary reason for this is that he was rarely on the side of the majority on split decisions, and therefore, wasn’t in a position to write the decisions and make law.
You could say the same thing about Ginsburg and Breyer…since they’ve been on the court, I don’t think they’ve done much of anything either. But again, I’d say this is a function of them all usually being in the minority opinion, rather than a lack of vision or intellectual heft on their part. All these people on the Supreme Court are super-smart if you’re able to separate the intellect from the ideology.
asc85 on May 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM
I have no hard feelings to David Souter. He did not change. I supose you could argue he should have let George H.W. Bush know how he leaned on issues, but the fact is Souter was pretty close to then President Bush’s political phiolosophy. He was simply a New England social liberal and fiscal moderate-conservative on business issues. President Bush was supposedly pro life, but come on, Barbara Bush made her feelings on the subject well known and in the Bush house Barbara was the one calling the shots. George H.W. Bush picked him and any blame goes to him if you disagreed with Souter’s jurisprudice (as most of us did).
Mr. Joe on May 2, 2009 at 1:27 PM
You’re the shallow simpleton. A justice can certainly leave a legacy without being a judicial activist. If Souter had authored brilliant, quotable opinions as a strict constructionist, that would have been an admirable legacy. Instead, he was just a liberal yes man, whose few lead opinions were poorly-reasoned and easily forgettable.
AZCoyote on May 2, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Actually, there is a dissenting opinion (or opinions) that are written as well as the majority opinion.
For those bashing Thomas, he has written several very well-written dissenting opinions. He may have written some majority opinions,but I am more familiar with the dissenting opinions.
AZfederalist on May 2, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Planned Parenthood v. Casey is the most significant case that he was instrumental in. His terse style didn’t lend itself to passionate dissents, but Kansas v Marsh was an eloquent questioning the death penalty and how the advances in technology affect our certainty in applying it.
dedalus on May 2, 2009 at 1:30 PM
One could hardly call the Kelo decision being fiscally moderate nor conservative on business issues. That was an extremely radical decision — it falls more under the “for the common good” Marxism
AZfederalist on May 2, 2009 at 1:32 PM
I think President Obama summed it up best (with some correction):
29Victor on May 2, 2009 at 1:35 PM
YES, judge David Souter will be remembered for, and forever dogged for, being on the wrong side of the Kelo vs. City of New London decision. JMO, clearly this fouled-up decision on eminent domain, usurped the Constitution. Every SCOTUS member that voted to CHANGE the Constitution, deserved impeachment, and still do. We the people lost, and they the government won.
byteshredder on May 2, 2009 at 1:43 PM
I cannot think of one.
Gothguy on May 2, 2009 at 12:08 PM
I can! I can! He is the only Supreme Court Justice ever mugged while out trolling the park bushes at night. :-)
Blake on May 2, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Doesn’t his mother still cut the crust off of his PB&J sandwiches?
Good grief. The GOP should have never let itself get browbeaten in too many of the SCOTUS nominations of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Nominating this zero was the result.
I want a full body cavity search on Obama’s nominees.
BuckeyeSam on May 2, 2009 at 1:51 PM
This guy from The Nation seems to think that Souter’s opinions are the cat’s pajamas:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090518/huq?rel=hp_picks
So there.
OK I just read it. The author cites Souter’s concurrence in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, “he series of dissenting views that Justice Souter has filed in so-called ‘federalism’ cases, and:
“In the school prayer case of Lee v. Weisman, Souter wrote a compelling rebuttal of Scalia’s account of the origins of the Religion Clause that will long merit study.”
And that’s it. That’s the best an ardent supporter of Souter can do, pouring over almost 2 decades of Souter’s tenure on the Supreme Court.
BCrago66 on May 2, 2009 at 1:51 PM
He will be remembered for…….um, remembered for…..for…….
David Souter: EPIC FAIL
thebrokenrattle on May 2, 2009 at 12:28 PM
——-
Hey, David Souter lived up to his nickname. Stealth Justice.
Did you ever see him do anything?
That’s stealth, baby!
Mew
acat on May 2, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Not being as bad as Obama’s First Supreme Court pick.
William Amos on May 2, 2009 at 2:07 PM
But they always do. First, we get the we can’t have litmus tests b.s. even though that is exactly what the donks do. Then we get the we are better than they are. I’m not. If the donks brink knives, we should bring guns. Then we got the Spector and McCain crap a couple of years ago.
I say this time, take no prisoners. Go through their garbage. Bring their children into it. Remember, they attacked Roberts 5 year old son, his wife’s parenting skills, tried to unseal their children’s adoption, attacked Mrs. Alioto for acting like a loyal wife. Screw ‘em. Screw the ba$tards!
Blake on May 2, 2009 at 2:14 PM
To me he will always be synonymous with Kilo v New London. The “what was in their fevered brain??” ruling that eliminated personal property rights and legalized bribing of city officials.
kurtzz3 on May 2, 2009 at 2:38 PM
I see. So Scalia’s dissent to this key decision was very profound, while actually making it pass really left no marked trail.
Gotcha.
radiofreevillage on May 2, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Daily Telegraph reporting that it is to be Sonia Sotomayor as Obama’s pick
William Amos on May 2, 2009 at 2:55 PM
William Amos
Leonard Doyle of the Daily Telegraph failed to mention her credentials beyond surviving a tough childhood, graduating law school and serving as a circuit court judge. Instead Mr. Doyle leaves that responsibility on the reader to infer from the statement that Rush Limbaugh has already criticized Ms. Sotomayer as a liberal activist. Mr. Doyle must either be lazy or actually defer to Limbaugh’s authority on the matter (or both).
I’d like to know her record, as judicial activists love to legislate from the bench.
maverick muse on May 2, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Actually, there’s something good to be said for not sticking out like a sore thumb, so long as the decisions are not outrageous.
maverick muse on May 2, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Souter is a symbol of failure for the entire republican party over the past what 80 years or so?
they’re the ‘go along to get along’ bend over for the libs at every opportunity. I wish the republicans would go the way of the whigs..hell with em.
so many wasted opportunities…all because they’re not conservative, and they don’t any core values, other than maintaining power…hell with em.
right4life on May 2, 2009 at 4:14 PM
What I was going to say, only much better!
As to Souter, his legacy for me will always be the Kelo decision. For that he deserves the Mussolini/Ceacesceau treatment. However, I would be satisfied to have his assets seized and redistributed to the rich.
TugboatPhil on May 2, 2009 at 4:16 PM
He was mentioned on Family Guy.
bcm4134 on May 2, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Well, despite continually leaving his lucky gavel at home he always wore his gown neatly pressed and sighed disdainfully with the best of them.
viking01 on May 2, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Souter is a prime example why lifetime terms are a bad idea. I’m not sure what is better but it seems reasonable that some time or age limit be applied to the office.
docdave on May 2, 2009 at 4:25 PM
You have to consider what appointed for “LIFE” meant in the way OLDEN COLONIAL DAYS … fifty years old…MAYBE.
Unless you are Ben Franklin who screwed French women to maintain his vigor, most dudes just weren’t getting that kind of action, so they never thought “appointed for LIFE” would be a bad thing.
seejanemom on May 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM
OH…and I just adore the Effete New Hampshire Yankee Snob comment about being “brain dead” for most of the year starting in the fall until he could escape back to New Hampshire (yuck!) in the summer…to what….rub elbows with all the other effete assholes who can’t be bothered to be HONORED BY A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND????
What a SUPREMELY ungrateful f^ckhead.
I’d have bought him a one way bus ticket YEARS ago if he had merely piped up about the ABJECT MSERY of having his ass kissed 24/7.
seejanemom on May 2, 2009 at 5:02 PM
OH…and I just adore the Effete New Hampshire Yankee Snob comment about being “brain dead” for most of the year starting in the fall until he could escape back to New Hampshire (yucko!) in the summer…to what….rub pointy heads with all the other effete a$$holes who can’t be bothered to be HONORED BY A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND????
What a SUPREMELY ungrateful f^ckhead.
I’d have bought him a one way bus ticket YEARS ago if he had merely piped up about the ABJECT MSERY of having his a$$ kissed 24/7!!!
seejanemom on May 2, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Kelo..nuff ced
Wade on May 2, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Poor Supreme Court choices outlast the Presidents who piucked them. The best example is John Paul Stevens (a Ford appointee).
bw222 on May 2, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Sadly, he will be soon overshadowed and forgotten by everyone including himself because the soon to be hand-picked unfilibusterable Justice hand-picked by Hope (we have short memories) & Change (my mind like the weather) to rewrite The Constitution will floor all but the dead.
ericdijon on May 2, 2009 at 5:42 PM
What the hell were they thinking, nominating a 50 year-old closeted gay man who lived in a barn on his mother’s farm? Can you imagine the blackmail potential?
It took a congenital idiot like a Bush (the father) to come up with that idea, along with Sununu.
TexasJew on May 2, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Back bencher at best — Surely not an intellectual, just a straight liberal vote for the most part.
It will be interesting to see how Roberts deal with empathy decisions …
tarpon on May 2, 2009 at 6:42 PM
I love how the media libs are now saying that conservatives can’t have any litmus tests for any nominee that Obama proposes. I say as a matter of principle it’s better to have no Justice appointed for the rest of Obama’s one or two terms than have any replacement Justice appointed by him. The danger to the Republic would be to great to risk approval and consent, than the risk to the Supreme Court from being one or two Judges under the Congressional limit of 9. After all the fact that Courts of Appeals are under the limit of their Judgeships because the democraps refused to approve Bush nominees is the standard that should be used. If the nominee is bad from a conservative standpoint there should be no give by the republican caucus whatsoever.
eaglewingz08 on May 2, 2009 at 7:02 PM
A habeas corpus doofus.
Good riddance.
profitsbeard on May 2, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Souter is a ‘Rube in a Robe” who considers himself ABOVE the Constitution. Souter will replaced by another “Rube in a Robe” who has the same opinion of the Constitution….WHY? because Obama is also a narcissist who thinks he is ABOVE the Constitution.
“No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid.
To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greaterthan his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people;
that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents.
A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute.”
Alexander Hamilton
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
James Madison
“The powers delegated by this constitution, are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the legislative department shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial; nor the executive exercise the powers vested in the legislative or judicial; nor the judicial exercise the powers vested in the legislative or executive departments.”
James Madison
nelsonknows on May 2, 2009 at 7:20 PM
If I had been asked, as Obama was, which of the Supreme Court justices should not have been on the court, I would answered “Souter and Kennedy.” However much I dislike Ruth Ginsberg, she’s clearly got the credentials and the intellectual heft to be there.
Souter, Kennedy, and O’Connor, three judges who should never have been on the Supreme Court bench, are the legacy of the Bork incident. If the Democrats had acted like reasonable human beings rather than agitated gorillas, Presidents would have continued to nominate judges who deserved to be on the bench. After the vicious character assassination of the utterly deserving Robert Bork, conservative Presidents felt forced to nominate non-entities… and the nation has suffered as a result.
philwynk on May 2, 2009 at 7:39 PM
His ears are like Obama’s.
suzyk on May 2, 2009 at 8:01 PM
Just curious…what are your gripes about the state of New Hampshire? You seem to be mighty snippy about the place.
And yes, I live there.
Del Dolemonte on May 2, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Oh, and PS, Souter is a career hack as far as SCOTUS goes. As I recall he was a carrer hack as a Federal Judge here in NH.
But it seems to me the Left would regret his retirement, as he sided with Gore in 2000. I guess that they can’t forgive him though, because his Pappy appointed him to the court.
In their sad parallel universe, Souter’s siding with them didn’t mean a thing. Because he was still the enemy.
Del Dolemonte on May 2, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Prior to being tapped for the SC, he did preside over the case of The State of New Hampshire v. The Guy with the Toboggan.
mikeyboss on May 2, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Speakup: agreed, although not many malls are going up in the Barney Frank/Chris Dodd economy.
Chickyraptor on May 2, 2009 at 8:45 PM
What? I’m sure even right now Obama is considering a pro-life member of the Federalist Society for the seat that is now open.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
I kill me.
It is like the article we were discussing earlier, the Republicans play by “the rules”, while the Democrats openly flout them – when they and their media aren’t making the rules, that is.
18-1 on May 2, 2009 at 8:50 PM
Once our
MessiahMistake has finished consolidating power into hisblessedmagic hands, it will not matter. At all.We are at a tipping point in our history, and the days are growing short for good people to save their Republic from tyranny.
hillbillyjim on May 2, 2009 at 9:16 PM
I’m reminded of a quote (not sure I have it right) that makes me think of Souter; “Nothing so preceded his success in life as leaving it.”
itsspideyman on May 2, 2009 at 10:12 PM
As Rush always says, being a Liberal is the easy choice in life…..it required no thinking….just show up…..and look for something free…..
sbark on May 2, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Which is a great example of the spinelessness of the GOP. At least the Democrats were willing to do what it takes. The GOP? Not so much.
Until we flush the careerist b*st*rds who live inside the beltway but pretend to represent the GOP we will continue to be beaten like red-headed stepchildren by the Dims. Because even though they aren’t that bright, they are that committed to their agenda.
iconoclast on May 2, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Short sighted, nanny state fan with a lot of smugness and and a clear and rueful bitterness to this country’s traditions. No wonder he waited for The One to come along and fill his slot.
He will be very much at home with the rest of New England. Can we talk those guys into going back to France?
IlikedAUH2O on May 2, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Let’s see, something nice to say about Souter…
I’ll go with “slightly less of a waste of space than Perez Hilton.”
Red Cloud on May 2, 2009 at 11:10 PM
He will always be known as the “Empty” Souter! No core and no soul. Thank you GWHB.
inspectorudy on May 3, 2009 at 1:43 AM
Kelto is enough!
Bubba Redneck on May 3, 2009 at 5:19 AM
KeltoKelo is enough!Bubba Redneck on May 3, 2009 at 5:19 AM
Bubba Redneck on May 3, 2009 at 5:20 AM
Here’s what he should be remembered for:
SOUTER CRIED REPEATEDLY IN HIS OFFICE AFTER BUSH V. GORE DECISION.
wordwarp on May 3, 2009 at 5:37 AM
That’s because you’re clueless. Clarence Thomas is a brilliant jurist. Souter is a lightweight, and always was a lightweight (much like our new President).
eyedoc on May 3, 2009 at 7:53 AM
Yes and I’ll remember him as a symbol of how you cannot trust anyone based on someone elses vague promises. Thank you, you jowly, fat Arab terrorist loving, bastard John Sununu. Also thank you Ronald Reagan for giving us that mediocrtiy named GHS Bush.
Hilts on May 3, 2009 at 8:43 AM
Well . . . there is Part C of his opinion in Bush v. Gore, in which he at least conceded the significance of certain Equal Protection arguments made by petitioners, that would have at least rendered a more uniform application of the election law in Florida to the election challenge.
But at the same time, he did fail to recognize the obvious timeline problem that would have been prompted by the consequences of his proposed remedy being applied in that regard.
The fact was that Al Gore did not want real uniform standards applied statewide, ones that would have truly satisfied the requirements of Equal Protection. That is because Gore and his people knew that the result would ultimately be a loss — as the media “studies” subsequently bore out — to their chagrin!
By the way, in my experience liberals tend to go out of their minds when you remind them of Part C of Souter’s Opinion, or for that matter, Part I-A-1 of Breyer’s Opinion.
That’s because they really rendered the decision into a qualified 7-2 opinion in that regard.
In fact, those two opinions may ultimately come to influence the outcome of the senatorial race in Minnesota. And, that may not prove to be to the benefit of the former comedian.
Trochilus on May 3, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Spill over from Massachusetts, much like Rhode Island.
Wade on May 3, 2009 at 10:28 AM
addios meathead
wade underhile on May 3, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Eric from Red State has a fond memory of him.
And again….LOL.
AprilOrit on May 3, 2009 at 12:06 PM
The idea the justices interpret the Constitution has become a joke. Their rulings often have nothing to do with the Constitution, but rather with their own personal philosophy and predelictions.
For example, if hate crime legislation goes to the SC, conservative justices will strike it down, and liberal justices will uphold it, just as day follows night.
For Souter, he was a blank before he was confirmed. It shouldn’t be a surprise he was a blank during his tenure.
Paul-Cincy on May 3, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Exactly right; well said.
MrLynn on May 3, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Check out what the left-wing media is saying;
“May 3 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama, weighing advice from both the left and right on his first Supreme Court choice, is likely to seek a judicial version of himself: a moderate coalition-builder.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090503/pl_bloomberg/aywe5vw98mta
If this wasn’t so serious to the health of the U.S., it would be a damned funny joke…Obama, a centrist?
BACK AWAY FROM THE CRACK PIPE!
O’bunghole will apoint another leftist “Rube in a Robe” to replace this idiot Souter.
“The First and Second Amendments were obsolete soon after they were ratified.” Barrack H. Obama
nelsonknows on May 3, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Ed,
The media has become a non-entity. They have achieved this by being partisan. Had they done the job that they were supposed to, we probably wouldn’t be in the mess that we’re in.
The media will have to fall to the absolute bottom of the barrel before they can claim any credibility.
belad on May 3, 2009 at 10:04 PM
Uhh, just wondering from the picture in this post, did he once play on “My Favorite Martian”? Sure looks like the guy.
MikeA on May 3, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Gulp. You mean there is really someplace below where they are now? I can’t really get a mental image of what that might look like. Can cred be measured in negative numbers?
MikeA on May 3, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Comment pages: