The news and blogs are ablaze with reports that Justice Souter will retire this summer. During his tenure, Justice Souter has been one of those justices who usually goes for the defense on issues where the Court is divided, but who occasionally could be won over with a good enough argument. His dissent in Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222 (1992) remains one of my favorite opinions, though it may no longer be one of his favorites. See Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S. 406, 425, n. * (2004) (Souter, J., dissenting).
The danger now is that a President with roots in radicalism and a filibuster-proof Senate will appoint someone vastly worse, e.g., a reincarnated William Brennan to plague America for another three decades. Let us hope for best, audaciously, but prepare for the worst.
The danger now is that a President with roots in radicalism and a filibuster-proof Senate will appoint someone vastly worse, e.g., a reincarnated William Brennan to plague America for another three decades. Let us hope for best, audaciously, but prepare for the worst.
Update: The WaPo has reprinted this Ruth Marcus piece from 1991 after Justice Souter's first 8 months on the Supreme Court: "One fairly clear piece of the Souter puzzle is his view on criminal
justice issues, a solidly conservative position that was apparent from
his votes on the New Hampshire Supreme Court." Eighteen years later, we have a "fairly clear" example of justice drift.
Leave a comment