Why Is Souter Leaving the Court?

You know, on sober second thought, all this stuff about David Souter wanting to get back to his beloved New Hampshire--I'm just not buyin' it. Two reasons, overlapping.

One, how quickly we forget: recall it was Souter who (in the words of Jeffrey Toobin) "was shattered" by Bush v. Gore:

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 thought he might not be able to serve with them any more.

And it wasn't just his adversaries; as Toobin makes clear, Souter found himself estranged even from his friends:

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, including the work of the Supreme Court, was universal. Toughened, or coarsened, by their worldly lives, the other dissenters could shrug and move on, but Souter couldn't.

--Jeffrey Toobin, The Nine 207-8 (2007)

So, Bush v. Gore. That's one reason. The second reason is that Souter doesn't need to leave the Court to go back to New Hampshire. Justice John Paul Stevens has been living in Florida for years. True, his physical absence may have something to do with the fact that Stevens has never been much of an intellectual influence on any of his colleagues--contrast Souter who made his biggest impact in alliance with Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. (Apparently) true also that Souter doesn't like the internet. But that's why God created law clerks. If aversion to Washington was his problem, there was any easy way out, and he didn't take it. I'd say he is embittered with the Court.

Welcome Home,David!

Readers bemused by the spectacle of Supreme Court Justice David Souter trudging home to his simple farmhouse in Weare, New Hampshire, may wish to recall that it was Weare that gave a thought to confiscating this simple farmhouse in retaliation for Souter's vote in Kelo v.New London, the Supreme Court's notorious eminent domain case. Admittedly in the end,the confiscation game turned out to be more media event than reality: a ballot measure for the projecct went down two-one, and a couple of candidates who had talked it up failed to win office (cf. link). As it happens, I think Kelo was wrongly decided, but this confiscation silliness is what gives conservatives a bad name.

Readers eager to retain their image of Weare as a quaint country town will be gratified to know that voters of Weare have rejected a recommendation from the Selectmen to spend $7,000 on fireworks for a community celebration. The vote was 747-746.

[Oh, and if you are bringing your brush to the Transfer Station, please call ahead to make sure they'll accept it.]