Some reflections on a justice who hated Washington; hated being the center of attention; had an outsized effect on future Supreme Court nominations; and took his job as a judge incredibly seriously.
"16 years after his retirement from the Court at the unusually young age of 69, the phrase best associated with the late justice is almost certainly “No more Souters.” As someone who spends a lot of time thinking about long-term (and not just short-term) Court reform, it strikes me that "more Souters" would actually be a damned good place to start."
Well said.
And I think this concept is applicable well beyond judging -- into day-to-day life. Enough with the "agendas" and the "axes to grind." Confront each set of facts with integrity and rigorous reasoning -- and go where that takes you.
Being a practicing trial court lawyer and not a scholar, I can’t offer an appreciation of Justice Souter’s work. What I can offer, however, is an appreciation for his independence and somewhat ascetic mode of living. I seem to remember one of the Justices of the Supreme Court — Scalia maybe? — telling us that judges are not monks. But in my experience, the best judges are often a bit monkish, and sometimes more than a bit. This is so not just for the obvious reason that palling around with rich people who buy you nice things raises suspicion about your impartiality not just in cases involving your friends, but in all cases involving rich people (who might one day become your friends), but because a judge, like the monk in his cell, serves mankind best by serving his god, by isolating himself from others while following a rigorous discipline with humility and sincerity. Judging isn’t a job for men and women who don’t love their fellows, and a misanthrope cannot be a good judge, but neither is it a job for those who want to live in the limelight, or to be universally loved. Justice Souter, it seems to me, struck the right balance.
As a layman, I did not have a detailed appreciation for Souter, but this, and Linda Greenhouse’s obit, begin to paint a compelling picture. I’m left to despair, in comparison, the essential smallness of a Kavanaugh and self-certainty of a Gorsuch.
Thank you for that excellent appreciation. Souter is the justice of his time that I too admired most, and your emphasis on how seriously he took judging helps me put my finger on why that was (and still is).
Thank you Steve for these comments, and thanks for referencing my meager homage from a different venue. He was one of a kind. I’m afraid “no more Souters” is likely to be descriptive even if it fails as a mantra.
"16 years after his retirement from the Court at the unusually young age of 69, the phrase best associated with the late justice is almost certainly “No more Souters.” As someone who spends a lot of time thinking about long-term (and not just short-term) Court reform, it strikes me that "more Souters" would actually be a damned good place to start."
Well said.
And I think this concept is applicable well beyond judging -- into day-to-day life. Enough with the "agendas" and the "axes to grind." Confront each set of facts with integrity and rigorous reasoning -- and go where that takes you.
Being a practicing trial court lawyer and not a scholar, I can’t offer an appreciation of Justice Souter’s work. What I can offer, however, is an appreciation for his independence and somewhat ascetic mode of living. I seem to remember one of the Justices of the Supreme Court — Scalia maybe? — telling us that judges are not monks. But in my experience, the best judges are often a bit monkish, and sometimes more than a bit. This is so not just for the obvious reason that palling around with rich people who buy you nice things raises suspicion about your impartiality not just in cases involving your friends, but in all cases involving rich people (who might one day become your friends), but because a judge, like the monk in his cell, serves mankind best by serving his god, by isolating himself from others while following a rigorous discipline with humility and sincerity. Judging isn’t a job for men and women who don’t love their fellows, and a misanthrope cannot be a good judge, but neither is it a job for those who want to live in the limelight, or to be universally loved. Justice Souter, it seems to me, struck the right balance.
I'll take a moment to dream about Souter not resigning and RBG resigning during Obama's term. Oh well.
Thank you for this, Professor Vladeck-
As a layman, I did not have a detailed appreciation for Souter, but this, and Linda Greenhouse’s obit, begin to paint a compelling picture. I’m left to despair, in comparison, the essential smallness of a Kavanaugh and self-certainty of a Gorsuch.
Thank you for that excellent appreciation. Souter is the justice of his time that I too admired most, and your emphasis on how seriously he took judging helps me put my finger on why that was (and still is).
Most definitely more Souters.
https://harvardlawreview.org/author/david-h-souter/
Thank you Steve for these comments, and thanks for referencing my meager homage from a different venue. He was one of a kind. I’m afraid “no more Souters” is likely to be descriptive even if it fails as a mantra.
The biography of Hand is tough to find.
What a nice tribute to Justice Souter. Yes, we need more Souter’s! Thanks for sharing, Steve.
I just learned that “Learned Hand” was not a complimentary nickname. Thanks for this insight and all the rest, Steve!