EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

JUSTICE SOUTER TO RETIRE (SLIDESHOW, VIDEO)

First Posted: 5/31/09 Updated: 5/25/11

Is Souter Staying

Scroll down for slideshow and video

UPDATED

Justice David Souter has decided to retire from the Supreme Court when the current term ends, according to several reports.

NPR, which was first to break the news, reported:

Souter is expected to remain on the bench until a successor has been chosen and confirmed, which may or may not be accomplished before the court reconvenes in October.

Reached at home, Supreme Court spokesperson Kathy Arberg repeatedly declined comment to Huffington Post on the report of Souter's resignation. Asked specifically if the report of Souter's planned resignation was inaccurate, Arberg repeated, "All I can tell you is no comment."

NPR's Nina Totenberg adds that Souter 69, has informed the White House of his decision and reports that President Obama is expected to appoint a woman:

At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court, but he has made clear to friends for some time now that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire.

For more about Obama's potential Supreme Court picks, click here.

NBC News reports:

According to various government officials, Justice David Souter plans to retire either at the end of this court term or once President Obama's choice to replace Souter is confirmed by the Senate. Look for more on the Souter retirement news tomorrow morning on TODAY.

Watch MSNBC's report on the planned retirement:

Click through this slideshow:

Earlier on Thursday, the Associated Press had the legal word buzzing with a story that hinted at Souter's retirement due to the fact that he has yet to hire any law clerks compared to the other eight justices who have each hired their four clerks.

Why does this matter? Under the scenario that counts, Souter, 69, would not be hiring clerks because he isn't planning to be in Washington in the fall. A retirement would give President Barack Obama his first chance to nominate a justice and the next few months would bring Senate confirmation hearings.

If Souter does indeed retire, all eyes will turn to President Obama and who he selects to fill that vital seat on the Supreme Court.

The move comes as a surprise since the most often-cited candidates for retirement have been Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 76, who is undergoing chemotherapy, and John Paul Stevens, 89.

The AP points out that Ginsburg has said she plans to serve into her 80s and Stevens has expressed no intention of leaving.

Souter came close to retiring out of despair with the infamous 2000 Bush vs. Gore decision which ended the Florida recount, in which he dissented along with three other justices.

According to Jeffrey Toobin's book, "The Nine," Souter was crushed by the decision and often wept when he reflected on it:

David Souter alone was shattered. He was, fundamentally, a very different person from his colleagues. It wasn't just that they had immediate families; their lives off the bench were entirely unlike his. They went to parties and conferences; they gave speeches; they mingled in Washington, where cynicism about everything, inluding the work of the Supreme Court, was universal. Toughened, or coarsened, by the their worldly lives, the other dissenters could shrug and move on, but Souter couldn't. His whole life was being a judge. He came from a tradition where the independence of the judiciary was the foundation of the rule of law. And Souter believed Bush v. Gore mocked that tradition. His colleagues' actions were so transparently, so crudely partisan that Souter though he might not be able to serve with them anymore.


Souter seriously considered resigning. For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice. That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same. There were times when David Souter thought of Bush v. Gore and wept.

Souter, nominated by the first President Bush in 1990, disappointed conservatives with his more-liberal interpretations of the Constitution. His decision in Casey vs, Planned Parenthood case, in which he upheld the Roe v. Wade decision that gave women the right to choose, also provided a clear indication of his thinking.

Here is a list of Justice Souter's decisions.

Souter graduated Phi Betta Kappa in 1961 from Harvard, majoring in philosophy.

More details to come...


Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

 
  • Comments
  • 2,076
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (41 total)
02:14 PM on 05/03/2009
ITS A OBOMANATIO­N OUT THERE?????­????
06:29 PM on 05/01/2009
Do you think that Bill Clinton would be a good Supreme Court Justice? I do.

Zan-Gah
07:09 PM on 05/01/2009
I don't think he can... he lost his Law License... remember, he broke the law and was impeached?

Besides, I'm sure he and Hillary would love the grilling!! HAHA
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
missouriwatcher
military veteran, veteran teacher, father, grandpa
01:09 PM on 05/01/2009
As I have aged, my opinion of the Supreme Court has undergone a lot of change. While it may seem like poetic justice (no pun intended) that so many "conservat­ive" appointees have in time voted in seemingly more liberal terms than those who put them there would have wanted (O'Connor, Ginsburg, Souter), it becomes apparent that the Justices are indeed mostly independen­t from political bias and ideals. This is as it should be; their focus is on constituti­onality of law, which requires an unbiased approach. While such decisions are not always popular, and the Justices--­being human do make bad calls from time, public opinion does change toward them over time. The fact that Justice Souter did vote against the decree leading to the coronation Geo. Bush II demonstrat­es an independen­ce; we can hope that the more conservati­ve Justices will mature into making all their decisions politicall­y non-biased­.
12:19 PM on 05/01/2009
Clarence Thomas has been getting eat on!!! Ginsburg smiles nervously as she hears his stomach growl.
01:53 PM on 05/01/2009
Uncle Tom....oop­s Justice Thomas might have just farted.
04:27 PM on 05/02/2009
You throw a racial slur at him because you do not like the way he behaves?
12:18 PM on 05/01/2009
guess he doesn't want to face 911 Truth and the Bush Cheney indictment­s that are invevitabl­y going to come forward. Wonder what he knows.
12:15 PM on 05/01/2009
Well damn, hasn't this been a week of political surprises! First Specter switches parties, now Souter's retiring?! Well, kudos to him for holding out until the Bush administra­tion ended.
11:54 AM on 05/01/2009
Too bad it wasn't Clarence Thomas leaving ... or Scalia!
12:01 PM on 05/01/2009
They were appointed precisely because they didn't have anything other than contempt for the law if it clashed with their beliefs.
12:10 PM on 05/01/2009
Based on what?

These are the ones that "apply" the Constituti­on vs. Souter and your lefty's how believe their job is to "Mold, Adapt, Compare to internatio­nal law, etc" and other nonsense such as:

"The Constituti­on is a living breathing.­.." Souter - don't let the door hit you on the @ss on the way out!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
whoknew42
GOBAMA2012!!
12:17 PM on 05/01/2009
HELLO!
11:54 AM on 05/01/2009
What a loss for the Court. I know it sounds geeky to have a "Favorite Supreme Court Justice," but he is mine. He's a thoughtful­, independen­t man. I really think that his decisions arose from legal scholarshi­p and reason more than personal ideology.

I hope history remembers him as the great justice he was, not just a member of the "liberal block" and/or the justice that "turned" on the Republican­s. It isn't a Supreme Court justice's job to push an agenda; rather, the job is about thoughtful­ly applying constituti­onal and federal law to make decisions about complex issues. I think Justice Souter did his job very, very well.
11:49 AM on 05/01/2009
Great job on Kelo Souter. Hope your precious farm doesn't get ripped away from you via eminent domain and replaced by a strip mall.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gmknobl
10:33 AM on 05/01/2009
The real question is what can be done for forcibly get rid of the neocon judges like Roberts, Thomas, Scalia? Something should be done while Obama is in office to help right the ship of state and set it on a true course of truth and justice again.
11:44 AM on 05/01/2009
Well, you have this one backwards.­.. Souter and the other left - World Court judges are the real dangerous ones... the kind that take away rights.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
11:57 AM on 05/01/2009
Wake
Left right or judges ? As long as they are fair minded. Judges have been known to surprise many with their decisions. .Neocon judges to me, are dangerous.
11:52 AM on 05/01/2009
"Forcibly get rid of..." Supreme Court justices? Have you ever, even once, read the Constituti­on? It's scary how uninformed people are.

The U.S. Constituti­on: there's an app for that.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
11:58 AM on 05/01/2009
Yes Quite alarming.
10:29 AM on 05/01/2009
As long as the new judge makes decisions based on their compliance with the constituti­on vs. precedence (what some other random judge ruled) I will be happy with the decision.

Prior decisions, however, do not bind the Supreme Court in a meaningful way. Precedent is a guidepost, not an endpoint. It is the interpreta­tion of constituti­onal terms by particular justices in a particular context at a particular time. The interpreta­tion may fit well with core sources of law and may provide insights to applying constituti­onal commands. But it also may have weak enough legal underpinni­ng that it proves to be a fringe that ultimately will be cut out of the law, not a strand that weaves integrally into the law.
http://www­.freerepub­lic.com/fo­cus/f-news­/1558781/p­osts
10:25 AM on 05/01/2009
Wow! Obama is going to get to appoint a lot more judges than I expected. I think the nakedly partisan ones will have to die before they give him the opportunit­y to replace them, tho.
10:21 AM on 05/01/2009
Obama ought to place Al Gore on the Supreme court. This would be poetic justice
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
festry548
12:08 PM on 05/01/2009
OMG YES!!!!
10:04 AM on 05/01/2009
what about Hillary?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
AndThenOneDay
10:22 AM on 05/01/2009
You're kidding right? 2 wars, North Korea, Iran, Israel, Cuba, and a host of other issues, and we're going to swap out the SoS to fill a seat on the bench?
10:24 AM on 05/01/2009
what do you think?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Copeword
Transmagoric?
11:47 AM on 05/01/2009
What about Bill?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
AndThenOneDay
10:03 AM on 05/01/2009
Hopefully Obama has resolved the paradox of his vetting process. It's both more extreme than anything Bush considered­, and at the same time, it has produced a number of embarrassi­ng withdrawal­s.

I wonder if he will select a non-judge. That would be interestin­g. 2 law school deans are supposedly in the mix.

For those who are waiting for Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas exits, check their ages. Except for Scalia who is in his early 70s - but pretty feisty - the rest are relatively young. The good news is that Justice Thomas who has yet to ask a single question from the bench in 17 years has at least another decade to give it a try...