Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter, a Republican appointee who stepped down in 2009 after frequently aligning with the court’s liberal faction, passed away on Friday, as confirmed by the court.
He was 85 years old. Souter, a modest New Englander who shunned the national limelight, was referred to as the ‘stealth nominee’ when President George H.W. Bush appointed him in 1990 to replace the liberal icon William Brennan. Advisers convinced the president that Souter would shift the court to a more conservative stance, a misunderstanding that continues to echo today.
The Supreme Court announced that Souter died on Thursday. ‘Justice David Souter served our court with great distinction for nearly twenty years,’ Chief Justice John Roberts stated. ‘He brought exceptional wisdom and kindness to a lifetime of public service.’
Individuals familiar with Souter described his legal philosophy as thoughtful, analytical, and aligned with the principle of judicial restraint. “The primary objective was to establish a Constitution and a Bill of Rights intended for an indefinite future,” Souter remarked at a 2012 event. “The challenge of implementing these principles in practice was a responsibility designated for future generations.”
Within a span of less than two years on the bench, he played a significant role in a landmark decision that reaffirmed the fundamental tenet of Roe v. Wade, which asserts that the right to abortion is implicitly safeguarded by the Constitution.
He subsequently aligned with the court’s liberal majority on matters concerning civil rights, affirmative action, and voting rights. His tenure ignited a rallying cry among conservatives – ‘No More Souters’ – leading to a more rigorous ideological scrutiny of judicial nominees. As a result, nominees from both political parties, including the current justices, are now less inclined to diverge from the views of the party that appointed them.
In 1995, Souter delivered a highly publicized unanimous ruling under the First Amendment, permitting the organizers of a St. Patrick’s Day parade in Boston to exclude an LGBTQ group from participation. A decade later, he advocated for a narrow 5-4 ruling that determined three counties in Kentucky breached the First Amendment by displaying framed replicas of the Ten Commandments in courthouses and public educational institutions.
Souter remarked, “The polarization caused by religion in contemporary public discourse is unavoidable. It is imperative to acknowledge the wisdom of interpreting the establishment clause as necessitating governmental neutrality regarding religious beliefs, which should be left to individual conscience.” He often conveyed his views with humility, as demonstrated in a 2009 concurrence related to Navajo Nation mineral rights, where he limited his remarks to just two sentences.
I continue to lament that my stance in an earlier case did not prevail, as I noted. However, it did not succeed, and I concur that the precedent established by that case necessitates the outcome achieved here.
In a notable deviation from contemporary norms, Souter stepped down after 19 years on the Supreme Court, aiming to return to his tranquil existence in New Hampshire. Having never married and showing little interest in the social dynamics of Washington, Souter retired at the age of 69, which is considerably younger than most justices upon their departure.
His resignation provided President Barack Obama, a Democrat, with his initial chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice. Obama selected Sonia Sotomayor, who identifies as a “fiery Latina,” to succeed the reserved New Englander Souter.
Sotomayor now holds the position of the senior member within the court’s three-justice liberal faction. Souter, pleased to leave behind the political turmoil of Washington, dedicated his retirement to New Hampshire, often serving on lower courts to address vacancies as required.
His aspiration for a tranquil life was evident during his time on the Supreme Court, as he shunned technology and wrote his opinions by hand. When questioned about the possibility of cameras being allowed in the courtroom, he famously responded, ‘Not while I am alive.’
