Goodbye and Good Luck, Justice Souter

Word is out that Justice David Souter will retire. Justice Souter was appointed by George H. Bush in 1990 to replace Justice Brennan. As you can well imagine, the liberals were howling when then-President Bush replaced the bastion of liberalness with a supposed conservative. In the early years of Justice Souter’s term, he usually joined the conservative opinions. But he began moving towards the middle until he started voting with the more liberal justices. It is ironic because when Eisenhower picked Justice Brennan to be a member of the Supreme Court, the Congress and the President thought Justice Brennan would be a conservative justice but ended up as one of the most liberal justices the Supreme Court has had. Much later, Eisenhower thought his choice of Justice Brennan was one of his worst decisions as president.

I do have to admire a justice who can modify his stance instead of stubbornly insisting on ideological positions that never change. Yes, I am one of those people who think that our ideas and positions always evolve and can be changed with due consideration. I also admire a person who retires gracefully instead of some justices who obstinately insist on staying on the bench despite being near death.
Justice Souter co-authored the decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, although he thought that restrictions could be placed on abortions. Justice Souter in 2000 dissented in Bush v. Gore, insisting that the presidential election recount should continue. There were allegations that Justice Souter was so disillusioned by that decision that he thought of retirement. Justice Souter also dissented in the recent photo id voter law issue in Crawford v. Marion County. He stated that without a shred of evidence that in-person voter impersonation was a problem in the state, much less a crisis, Indiana had adopted one of the most restrictive photo ID requirements in the country. Souter concluded that the Indiana voter Id law was unconstitutional and that the state interest failed to justify the practical limitations placed on the right to vote and that the law imposed an unreasonable and irrelevant burden on voters who are poor and old.

Have a good retirement, Justice Souter.

Now, the next question is who shall replace Justice Souter. Should Obama look for a person who represents America or do we look for qualities beyond what a person looks like? Can we reconcile those two interests?