A shy man who never married and who much preferred an evening alone with a good book to a night in the company of Washington insiders, Justice Souter retired at the unusually young age of 69 to return to his beloved home state.... He turned down all the opportunities for foreign travel that other justices accepted eagerly.... No one who had Boston needed Paris, he would say.
He gave few speeches, politely rejecting all the invitations that came his way to teach, participate in seminars or give academic lectures. He rented a small apartment not far from the court, furnished it sparingly.... His regular lunch, eaten at his desk, consisted of yogurt and an apple, core and all. After an evening working in his chambers, he ran for exercise around the track at a nearby Army base....
As soon as the court recessed for vacation, Justice Souter promptly repaired to New Hampshire, where he relaxed and unwound from the term by seeing old friends, hiking in the White Mountains, sailing and reading.... Late every September, he put a few belongings in his car and drove alone back to Washington....
There are no immediate survivors. Justice Souter’s father died in 1976. His mother, with whom he shared a home for years and whom he later visited regularly at her retirement home in Concord, lived long enough to see her only child reach the heights of the legal profession....
After he retired, Justice Souter sold the family farmhouse and moved to a substantial in-town house in Concord. The reason, he explained, was his large book collection, which the old farmhouse could neither hold nor structurally support. Reading history remained a cherished pastime. “History,” he once explained, “provides an antidote to cynicism about the past.”
Posts
72 comments:
I appreciate that he didn't cling to his SC post. Other judges and politicians should follow his example of leaving well before their expiration date.
"Republican Justice?" I'm pretty sure I've read something to the effect that the Justices are apolitical -- Roberts has claimed that, no?
RIP…
of course, he NEVER "migrated" from right to left..
He Just QUIT PRETENDING to be right
So what did he die of? It just says "he died peacefully at home". Ok, MSM can you do some actual Goddamn reporting, and give us the facts?
Anyway, Bush 41 picked him because he didn't want to fight the D's over SCOTUS picks. OF course Bush 41 lied to the voters and said he'd pick Scalia like justices unlike that ACLU clone Dukakais. Bush 41 didn't give a rip about social issues, and when he did care he was a liberal.
The Republican voters, being gullible rubes bought that Souter was a conservative. Didn't John Sununu, the man with the 180 IQ, say he was a conservative? The fact that his sponser was Senator Warren Rudman, a social liberal, should have made it obvious that was false. As was the curious lack of opposition to his nomination from Ted Kennedy.
A judicial conservative and a political conservative are very different entities, especially if they are honest.
One thing I admire about Souter was he retired when he was 70 instead of hanging on forever like Ginsberg or John paul stevens. Of course, he retired when a Democrat was in office so he could be replaced with another liberal.
What is a judicial conservative? Was Scalia one?
"No one who had Boston needed Paris, he would say."
That sounds exactly like the kind of closed-minded non-thinker that resounds in most of Souter's court writings.
Nobody who has ever been to Boston and also visited Paris would ever make such an idiotic statement.
Boston is a shithole compared to most other places. An absolute dumpster fire.
I seem to remember something about him having a collection of papers that were only to be made publically available 50 years after his death. Guess that countdown begins now.
I always sort of suspected he was gay, and the papers would reveal that. That seemed like a bigger deal at the time, I suppose.
"instead of hanging on forever like Ginsberg"
Don't be dissing Ginsberg. She hung on long enough to ensure the end of Roe v. Wade. I mean, she's still burning in the sulpherous fires of hell right now, but she did give us that.
I prefer New Hampshire to Boston, myself, but Boston might be the best small city in the world, excepting its current mayor and her policies.
Justice Strange New Respect
Who eats apple cores?
I thought apple seeds were supposed to be mildly poisonous.
Grok informs me that retired justice Souter was likely drawing at least $260,000 per year on his federal pension and another $100,000 on his NH pension as of 2025. The numbers could have totaled north of $400,000; Grok doesn't know for certain.
Souter did at times sit on First Circuit cases as a retired justice.
So, yeah, he did just "hang on" forever like some of them do. But I'm not sure how laudatory it was for him to retire so (relatively) young. I get the impression he just retired for personal and lifestyle reasons, not because he thought the court as an institution would benefit if justices hung up their robes by age 70.
He DIDN'T just "hang on" forever, I meant to say.
NYT obits really make clear who's a friend vs. who's an enemy.
His life sounds lonely to me, but I guess it worked for him. I can't imagine eating the same lunch every day, particularly an apple core. I wonder if the cyanide in all those apple seeds eventually built up and killed him.
"Who eats apple cores?"
"I thought apple seeds were supposed to be mildly poisonous."
Please let's not question the man's core beliefs.
Ann Althouse said...A judicial conservative and a political conservative are very different entities, especially if they are honest.
IMO, they are not different at all—if they’re honest.
Concord Bridge certainly was historic. Time flies.
Apple seeds poisoned his mind.
I'm reminded of Souter's central role in the Kelo eminent domain decision. Souter joining the liberal judges to deliver a 5-4 majority was a turning point in how I viewed the modern GOP and how it handled court appointments and governance in general.
I view the outcome to be an egregious assault on the public and the American ethos. Nonetheless, as a non-lawyer, I'm willing to concede that the legal arguments for the outcome based on a long chain of precedent are disturbingly plausible, though extremely disturbing. I think the Althouse blog helped me to realize that.
The Kelo protests were the first protests I ever attended as a participant, rather than as a mere observer. If you look at the early Kelo protests in New London, you don't have to strain to see the embryonic form of the Tea Party movement.
PS. Part of me was very disappointed that the post-Kelo campaign to have his farmhouse seized via eminent domain failed. It would have fortified a terrible precedent, but it would have carried a small measure of justice.
“A judicial conservative and a political conservative are very different entities ….” Russell Kirk might disagree.
You don't have to agree with a man's point of view to honor his integrity. R.I.P.
Boston is a shithole compared to most other places. An absolute dumpster fire.
Little Italy in the North End used to be pretty good. The local mob made sure that no vagrants or pickpockets would ever cause trouble. People who minded their own business could walk there in safety at any time of day or night, according to a friend who managed a pizza joint there.
Not sure that is still the case; I hear the Mafia is getting old and sclerotic these days, and giving way to Russians and Nigerians and other newcomers.
Will never forget his shameful role as petty aristocrat and oligarch in Kelo vs New London. He perfectly embodied the corrupt, tyrannical nature of the Left that seeks to deny the citizenry of their rights and freedoms so only his ilk can posses them.
May he burn in hell.
"You don't have to agree with a man's point of view to honor his integrity."
He ruled in Kelo v. New London that corporations can just take your shit if they can get their government bribees to assist them.
He's got no integrity. Given the opportunity, I will piss on his grave.
Scalia once remarked that he missed David Souter. That's enough for me. Souter studied, gave and lived unselfishly, and tried to make the world a better place. May he rest in peace.
Kelo was a travesty IMHO.
Re his Boston v. Paris comment: I am now 70 and have lived in the Jupiter, Florida area since I was 15. Though it has gotten expensive beyond my means, I still love my adopted hometown. People have asked me if I had not had any desires to live elsewhere. I told them, "I am sure that there are many places in America that are more beautiful, more pleasant to live in, and that I could make a home perhaps -- but I love Jupiter and I would not live elsewhere." He would have been better off saying that he loved Boston and all it had to offer instead of matching it against any other place.
In today's cynical political climate, color me skeptical of "rock-ribbed integrity" and "flinty, independent-minded New Englanders."
No one who had Boston needed Paris, he would say.
To be fair, back when he was young, Paris probably smelled more like urine than Boston did, though not near as much as Boston does now.
The conservative middle: pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness in a Republic under a Constitution that mitigates authoritarian progress.
RIP: Rest in Pusillanimouty
“Who eats apple cores?”
Bill Clinton ate apple cores. So there was at least two people who did.
Souter got the nod for USSC over Ken Starr, then Solicitor General, who was judged to be squishier on Roe v Wade.
He never wanted the job. If he had integrity, he would have refused it. He was rather deceptive in his confirmation hearings and spent his tenure there whining about hating it. More spiteful and naive than principled, I'd say. He cashed his checks regularly though, and didn't waste our money on constant travel and speeches, and I admire that.
Hombre is right. Souter was far too elitist (in an apple-core eating way) to comprehend how his decisions would affect ordinary families. He was a pure intellectual with no grasp of the real world. We need those people, but they don't belong on the bench or in politics. Let's be honest: 99% of the law is applying the law (or not), and that is entirely political. It never ceases to amaze me how few professors, researchers, and judges comprehend this. They really ought to teach law school classes on that. I'm not referring to present company, but the willful ignorance runs deep throughout our academic and judicial systems. Souter was too blinkered to belong on a bench. And all judicial benches are political, like it or not.
“ A judicial conservative and a political conservative are very different entities, especially if they are honest.”
Very precise.
Will never forget his shameful role as petty aristocrat and oligarch in Kelo vs New London.
There are aspects of Kelo that make it a close constitutional call, but the core right of the government to seize your or my property is as enshrined in the Constitution as freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. You can hardly blame Souter for that.
except the result of kelo, was that years later, the land lay fallow and unused,
Introvert, extrovert, controvert.
"The thing people don’t get about Boston is that yes: it’s wildly expensive. Yes: it’s freezing. And yes: it’s difficult to navigate and the people are unfriendly. BUT the food? Also not good. "- Lucy Huber
Kelo vs New London.
That's his legacy.
Asshole.
but the core right of the government
The core right of government? The core right of government?
Show me where in the Constitution the government has ANY rights.
Earnest Prole said..."There are aspects of Kelo that make it a close constitutional call, but the core right of the government to seize your or my property is as enshrined in the Constitution as freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. You can hardly blame Souter for that."
Yeah, I find the Kelo decision to be morally offensive, but when the case was being adjudicated, I was shocked to learn about the long history and precedents that supported the decision.
I was raised on Bugs Bunny cartoons where "a man's home is his castle" was a prominent theme, it was quite a jolt to learn that it wasn't quite true.
Anyone who's spent time in Beacon Hill can recognize the Boston Brahmin in situ: elitist, parsimonious, inhabiting expensive family real estate and holey wool sweaters, complaining, complaining, complaining in pinched polite tone.
They don't make New England Republicans like David Souter anymore.
Just kidding. That's all they make.
Still...he was not an evil man. Rest in peace.
Show me where in the Constitution the government has ANY rights.
Surely you’d agree the Constitution grants Congress the right to declare war and the President the right to issue pardons.
Surely you’d agree the Constitution grants Congress the right to declare war and the President the right to issue pardons.
Those are powers, not rights.
Or to be more specific: They are DELEGATED powers that we the people grant to the government at our discretion, and can revoke as we see fit, for any reason. Rights don't work like that.
BUT the food? Also not good. "- Lucy Huber
Lobster is overrated. So are clams and oysters. The Wampanoag Indians were surprised and disgusted to see the Pilgrims eating them, instead of using them for fish bait. Until about 150 years ago, they were what the state and colonial governments fed to prisoners and paupers.
I’ll say it your way if it makes you happier: The government’s power to seize your property and mine is as enshrined in the Constitution as Congress’ power to declare war, the President’s power to issue pardons, the people’s right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, and the people’s right to bear arms.
New England isn't making any Republicans of any sort nowadays. 21 Representatives, all Democrats. The only Republican senator is the questionable Susan Collins. The Elliot Richardson or Leverett Saltonstall or John Chaffee or Prescott Bush or Henry Cabot Lodge types are all Democrats now. Paul LePage of Maine is the closest thing to a conservative that the region has elected in a dog's age -- and no Brahmin he.
It is worth noting that Souter was an authority on Proust, more than just a Supreme Court Justice, a scholar.
Lazarus, you're forgetting that the current governor of New Hampshire and her predecessor were Republicans. Squishy wets, for sure, but Republicans.
Top grade fried oysters with a good tartar sauce or aioli can’t be rated high enough in my experience.
Souter was in the closet, in many respects.
Good for him enjoying his retirement. Work to live people.
"You don't have to agree with a man's point of view to honor his integrity."
What integrity? Souter lied his way through his confirmation. And leaving that aside, he was no more "honorable" then any other SCOTUS judge of the last 50 years.
Again, the only thing good about Souter is he didn't hang around till 90 like Stevens or till death took him at 87 like Ginsberg. We'll never get age limits on SCOTUS judges but we should. I'd say 75 years old is long enough. Its insane that we had some ol' geezer like Stevens - who fought in WW II - deciding USA societial issues in 2005!
Wow Earnest Prole. Tell us you know absolutely nothing about this case without telling us.
First, there was no close constitutional call. The Takings Clause applies to the federal goverment. Since this was local, this should have been ruled immediately against New London.
"but the core right of the government to seize your or my property is as enshrined in the Constitution."
This is so moronically naive that, I had to assume that you are purposely gaslighting. The Takings Clause specifically states that it can only with just compensation for public use. This had neither. The city attempted to screw the property owners by false claims of blight, which they would later admit after statutory reforms were passed after the SCOTUS ruling. Even Justice Stephens later admitted he messed up on the "public use" application, and that broad Also, to compare this to the 1st and 2nd Amendments is beyond laughably stupid.
"You can hardly blame Souter for that"
Sorry my android is being obnoxious.
As i was saying Souter is 100 percent culpable in this travesty, along with Ginsberg. At least Stephens showed some contrition and admitted the broad use of "public use" was incorrect and retroactively referenced when it was a 19th century invention. He went on say it was the worst, most unpopular decision he ever authored.
But Souter takes his Atlantic coast hubris to his grave. May it be used as a municipal septic tank- for the "public use."
There are aspects of Kelo that make it a close constitutional call, but the core right of the government to seize your or my property is as enshrined in the Constitution as freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. You can hardly blame Souter for that.
Nonsense. The power of the government to take property "for public use" is implied by the explicit limitation that the government cannot do so without just compensation. It is hardly the equivalent of a citizen's right which "shall not be abridged."
Kelo clearly involved a taking for the primary benefit of a private corporation with an incidental and speculative "public" benefit. The obvious "conservative" or "Constitutionalist" position would be to make clear that the "takings" clause is a limitation and not a "right," and that government/corporate land grabs which flaunt that limitation are not only constitutionally suspect but the essence of the "fascism" that our Constitution anticipated and is explicitly intended to prevent.
There is no "close call" about it. The fact that there existed legal precedent supporting the fascist interpretation is no more persuasive than the fact that there was existing legal precedent for Dredd Scott. Wrong is wrong.
I’ll restate for those whose lips move when they read: While the facts of Kelo produced a close 5-4 decision, the power of the government to seize your property and mine would be upheld as Constitutional 9-0 by this and any other Supreme Court.
Oh, and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution has applied to state and local governments since 1868, the same as the First and Second Amendments, with which I would hope you have no quarrel.
Constitutional originalism both giveth and taketh away.
Surely you’d agree the Constitution grants Congress the right to declare war and the President the right to issue pardons.
You're confusing government authority with a Constitutional right. The government has no rights.
Words mean things.
David Souter is but one in a long tradition of liberal and centrist Republican Supreme Court Justices that stretches back to fellow New Hampshirite Harlan Stone, and perhaps further.
That tradition is at risk of dying during the second Trump administration, but so far it looks as though it is gaining new life.
Some of these comments are rather distasteful.
While we should speak of the deceased with some grace, Justice Souter’s life does raise important questions. He lived in near-total solitude—no spouse, no children, and little apparent engagement with the everyday social institutions that shape most people’s lives. Our legal system, rooted in English common law, is built on the idea that justice flows from shared human experience—from being judged, and judging, as peers. When a person so thoroughly withdraws from communal life, should they wield power to shape laws that affect families, schools, and society? It’s worth asking whether someone who declined to live within the fabric of society can fully understand how to govern it.
Souter was asexual. Gay guys aren’t dull ascetics.
Souter authored the majority decision in Atwater v Alta Vista. A 5-4 decision joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. Souter was more conservative than O’Connor. She was a lightweight
I hate myself for voting for the Bush’s. They presented as Texas conservatives but were actually New England liberals at heart.
It's too bad he didn't remain on the court till he died. We would never have Sotomayer and DJT would be picking another justice.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.