Let’s Talk Politics

President Obama will have the opportunity to alter the Supreme Court more to his liking in light of Justice Souter’s recent announcement of his retirement. Many have labeled Justice Souter a low-impact judge and a few on the right have labeled him a mistake. But with luck, the annals of history will remember him as a man who loved the law and knew it very well, but was outshined by larger-than-life ideological powerhouses who focused more on their contribution to legal precedent.

David Souter certainly possessed the proper credentials for his appointment: Graduated Harvard undergrad magna cum laude, a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, received a JD from Harvard, and five years later, was appointed as the Deputy Attorney General of New Hampshire. He was nominated to the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1990 and despite his reputation as a conservative judge (though not as conservative as Justices Scalia, Thomas or Rehnquist), he was successfully confirmed in a liberal Senate with 90 votes. Of the nine senators who voted against his confirmation, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy were among them. The National Organization for Women was opposed to his confirmation as well.

Within the first years of his tenure, he started to gravitate towards the liberal wing of the court. The turning point was in Casey v. Planned Parenthood in which he sided with Justices Kennedy and O’Conner in upholding the foundations of Roe v. Wade while also upholding four of the five criteria in question in Casey. In Lee v. Weisman, Souter sided with the liberal bloc again, agreeing that allowing a clergy-led school prayer in a public high school graduation was a violation of the First Amendment. Both cases were argued in 1992—two years after his appointment.

Souter gradually became a liberal stalwart.  His voting record eventually placed him alongside Justice John Paul Stevens, the court’s most liberal justice.  Ultimately, he voted with Stevens more than either Justices Breyer or Ginsburg. The latter two were both Clinton appointees.

But Souter’s best work was found in the practice of law, and not in the rulings. Unlike Justice Scalia, Souter never sought to transform his seat into an bastion of legal commentary; his opinions will never be regarded as supremely influential to the progression of legal philosophy. Souter likened his job to a skilled craft, in which one strives to achieve to same result every time: A just, fair trial and a correct ruling.

In a press conference President Obama said of Souter: “He came to the bench with no particular ideology. 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.”

No one is said to have worked harder within the chamber than Justice Souter.

The Obama administration is now tasked with finding a suitable replacement for Souter. This will not be as easy as one might think. Thanks to Presidents Bush and Clinton, the lower courts have been fully stocked with conservative and moderate justices. The President needs to find a strong liberal voice that will be able to attract Justice Kennedy, the court’s only true swing vote. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer have not historically filled the role.

Regardless of who is picked, President Obama should take care to remember Souter’s legacy when he makes his decision. Only one cornerstone is needed to build a solid structure, but without supports, the structure collapses. David Souter was not a philosopher or a particularly skilled writer, but a judge who was very skilled at his trade. He handled his job with integrity and a work ethic that was not rivaled by any of the other eight members of the court. For his contribution to history, America is truly grateful.