The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Remembering Justice Souter
The justices reflect on their former colleague.
As has become traditional, the sitting and retired justices of the Supreme Court have issued statements regarding the death of Justice David Souter. All of the justices participated, including those who did not serve with him on the Court. The statements may be found here.
For those interested in Justice Souter's jurisprudence, beyond what is found in his opinions, here is the commencement speech he delivered at Harvard in 2010.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Oh, I remember that damned RINO.
Another Harvard indoctrinated America hater. Nothing he could say had the slightest validity. Trash.
One word: Kelo.
And the "Lost Liberty Hotel" to be built in a small NH town.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Liberty_Hotel
I wish they'd done it....
May God grant him peace but here on earth he was unhinged
Yes, look at Kelo. Clarence Thomas was right at least if you are not a lawyer 😉
"First, Thomas begins with a textual analysis of the words “for public use,”
considering the definition of “use” in a founding-era dictionary and comparing the Public Use
Clause to other clauses in the U.S. Constitution and in several other contemporary
constitutions. Second, the opinion examines the “Constitution’s common-law background,”
which Thomas believes “reinforces” the conclusions of his textual analysis. Perhaps not
surprisingly, Thomas almost exclusively relies on the writings of William Blackstone for this
“common-law background.” Finally, Thomas surveys the early states’ eminent domain
practices and explains how these practices support his understanding of the original meaning of
the Public Use Clause."
Jane Jacobs opposed it !!! There you go I saw a llist of the hundred greatest books of the 20th century. She was on there twice and she was ordinary as toast.
Not my favorite opinion writer in style nor in substance, but no one could argue he was influenced by outside pressures.
He believed everything he wrote, and it all came from him.
Anklebiters and obligate partisans are just showing their asses.
"it all came from him"
His clerks must not have had a lot of work to do if they couldn't even draft his opinions. What did they do, fetch coffee?
"He believed everything he wrote"
So did Roger Taney.
His clerks
Pedantry.
Roger Taney
Taking my "Not my favorite opinion writer in style nor in substance" and repeating it, but in a shitty assholish way.
Someone got out of bed on the wrong side this morning. Assuming you *are* out of bed, that is.
Wow, there's a textbook damning with faint praise. His style and substance wre no good but let's praise him
"Honey, your Viennese Chocalate Cake had harmful substanes in it and tasted like shit, but you sure can cook!!!"
I think his conclusions were correct as a whole, including regarding federalism, religious liberty, and (as Rick Hasen noted) democracy.
His writing style was not as smooth as other justices.
Souter was also ethical and a good human being, which is not a bad thing when looking for a good judge. Good sense of humor.
Kelo was rightly decided, but it's also silly to rest his whole career on that decision. He was wrong about cameras in the courts.
A close personal friend’s father was a State Supreme Court Justice in Vermont. He said Dad referred to Souter as “an odd duck”.
So Dred Scott was wrong but Taney, hey, great guy.
Yeah, good on religious liberty if you're Ayn Rand !!!
HEIN v. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, IN
Justice Souter issued a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer. For these justices, the individual harm that results from Establishment Clause violations is key. It matters little to the individual whether the injury originated from the Executive Branch or instead stems from an act of Congress. In either instance, government spending which violates the Establishment Clause injures the individual’s right of conscience. Once this injury is established under Article III, “there can be no serious question about the other elements of the standing enquiry.”
SOUTER WAS NO REHNQUIST
===========================
The strongest challenge to the Court’s reliance on Jefferson’s metaphor to interpret the establishment clause came from then-associate justice William H. Rehnquist in his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985).
The Court’s majority found an Alabama statute that provided for public schools to observe a minute at the start of each day “for meditation or voluntary prayer” violated the establishment clause. The statute originally had mentioned only meditation, but had been amended to add the words “or voluntary prayer.”
Justice Rehnquist attacked the Court’s reliance on Jefferson’s understanding of the religion clauses, saying,“ There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the ‘wall of separation’ that was constitutionalized in Everson [v. Board of Education].” Rehnquist added that the Court’s establishment clause jurisprudence “has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.”
======================
Reason just instinctively attacks anything to do with God.
To commemorate his death, the government seized Souter's house and turned it over to the Supreme Court Historical Society for use as a museum.
/sarc
But weare in NH is it? 🙂
Another Last Puritan lost. Not too many left. Historically, an honorary doctorate entitles the holder to all the academic rights of the doctorate on the campus of the conferring university. Perhaps there's a ghost on the Yard now making good use of his library privileges. RIP.
Mr. D.
Of Supreme Court Justices in my adult lifetime, David Souter remains my favorite. I viewed him as a kindred soul, conservative by temperament rather than ideology, with a worldview of general restraint. From watching him and reading his decisions, I believe he saw his role as one of quiet resistance against the excess and dramatic change so many of his colleagues actively pursue.
We could both be called slight, soft-spoken men of frugal tastes. We shared a lifelong habit of solitary dawn running, and were also similar in taking a voluntarily early retirement from jobs we liked and remained good at (me at 63, Souter at an early-for-SCOTUS 69, though for several years he heard cases on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, and I took the occasional Security & Privacy solo consulting engagement for old clients).
And it seems our retirements were likely for similar reasons. He probably did the fewest sponsored-travel interviews, book tours, and lectures of anyone on the court (and certainly at least tied for least luxury-travel-funded-by-billionaires, because 0=0). As he wrote to retired Justice Harry Blackmun: “In a perfect world, I would never give another speech, address, talk, lecture or whatever as long as I live.” Me too.
When the court was out of session, he'd spend most of his time in what's, seemingly by law, always referred to as "the tiny hamlet of Weare, New Hampshire," reading, hiking, and trail-running. For me it's reading, every-other-day disc golf (since I had to stop running two years ago), and pretty much my only group activity, small-choral-group singing.
When we retired, Ms. Purple and I downsized to an unassuming working-class neighborhood, chosen for its walkability anchored by a minor small private college. After 40+ years of constant worldwide travel in a military, then consulting career, I don't get out much and like it that way. (In the 11 years since I bought my used Mini Cooper, I've put only 31k miles on it).
In remarks on Justice Souter's retirement, Barack Obama got it just right: he “...never sought to promote a political agenda. And he consistently defied labels and rejected absolutes, focusing instead on just one task — reaching a just result in the case that was before him.”
It's a pity that no longer consistently applies to any of the Court's current members. (btw, Justice Amy Coney Barrett may be closest, and perhaps becoming more so, much to Josh Blackman's constantly expressed distress.)