The Current Crisis
The Liberals Are Snickering
But Justice Souter is oblivious.
WASHINGTON — Is it possible that Justice David H. Souter has sensed what I have sensed in reading the liberals’ dutiful adieus to him, their judicial Benedict Arnold? They are all snickering behind their hands. Sure, he pleased them enormously by his 19 years of tergiversations against conservative jurisprudence, after being President George H. W. Bush’s “conservative” Supreme Court nominee. But through all Souter’s years here in Washington he revealed himself to be a stupendously self-absorbed oddball and not much else. He fell far short of the liberals’ conception of a progressive Supreme Court dissenter, to wit: a charismatic, outspoken, slightly outré intellectual on the model of William O. Douglas.
Souter has been, as the Washington Post puts it, notable for his “quirky independence in spurning the right.” The operative word here is “quirky.” It is not meant as a compliment. Our liberals admire eccentricity but not the eccentricity of a misanthropic loner. Thus, in every supposedly friendly retrospective that I have read of him since he informed the Democratic president that he, a Republican Supreme Court nominee, was retiring, the liberals have stressed his weirdness: the misfit, the loner, the guy whose luncheon consists of yogurt and an apple he eats “core and all.” That was the New York Times speaking. On the front page of its “Week in Review” section, the newspaper ran a huge picture of him from years ago wearing a silly plaid suit, the collar of his shirt vaguely reminiscent of Calvin Coolidge, his face expressionless, but his eyes large and glistening, like the caricatures one used to see of girls with huge Bambi-like eyes. Another Times picture shows him, coat-and tie, hastening past his ramshackle, unpainted, wooden farmhouse, situated at the end of an unmarked dirt road in rural New Hampshire. Some locals have thought it was abandoned.
It is a farmhouse his parents and grandparents inhabited and bequeathed to him, an only child, a bachelor, the Supreme Court’s “solitary soul,” as the Post subtly joshes. At every opportunity, the liberals write in their bon voyage reminiscences, Souter would flee Washington and drive his Volkswagen sedan to this hick hideout. He eschews the aeroplane, public appearances, and society in general. Now he is vacating his rented Southwest Washington apartment. He will not spend much time packing because, we are told by the amused liberals he never unpacked when he drove down from New Hampshire in 1990. He just kept his effects in boxes. So now back into those boxes he will dump his clunky shoes and his ratty old out-at-the-elbows sweaters before taking his last solitary ride back to the woods. There he likes to hike alone at night with a flashlight. I did not make this up. These are the details that the liberals have been relating about him as they recapitulate his career as a Republican-turned-progressive. As I say, they are snickering.
They have very little to say about Souter’s work on the court other than that he sided routinely with the liberal minority. I can understand their reticence. After conferring with scholars who follow the court, I can report that they recall not one opinion of his that was memorable for anything other than smugness. As one told me, Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissents have been “thought-provoking,” Justice John Paul Stevens’s “intelligent.” Souter in his dissents has been simply a liberal tag-a-long. There is something about him that is not quite adult. He asks questions persistently, the liberals say with a wink. Well so does a lost child.
It is said that Justice Souter is a “ferocious reader” (That from the Washington Post, perhaps again in jest. There is nothing ferocious about this milksop.) Supposedly he reads a great deal of history, but his rare public remarks give little evidence of it. In one of his occasionally remarked upon dissents he seems to be oblivious of history. Two years back he sided with the liberal minority in expressing the fear that Louisville, Kentucky might slide back into segregation, perhaps even Jim Crow, without citywide racial quotas in its schools. If history demonstrates anything it is that America is well beyond racial bigotry from government, whether local, state, or federal.
Souter’s bland years on the Court should remind us of the importance of experience in choosing our leaders. President Bush and his advisers might have thought it was clever of them to nominate a judge with almost no paper trail. After serving on the New Hampshire Supreme Court for seven years, Souter served just two months on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit before his nomination. But for almost two decades it has been clear that he is out of his depth. The troubling thought is that the president who is about to nominate Souter’s replacement is out of his depth too.
I began this column with a question. Does the departing justice realize that the liberals, whom he benefited, are snickering? The answer is no. As with much else, he is oblivious.
About the Author
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (43) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
More Articles From The Current Crisis
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/08/the-liberals-are-snickering
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
P. Aaron| 5.8.09 @ 7:49AM
Souter, just like Colin Powell, Arlen Specter and other unremarkable moderates are just a few of the useful idiots that the left utilizes to move their disastrous agenda. They all plow the middle of the road with one eye open, stranding Americans in their driveways all the while saying that the road is clear...if you can get past the obstacles they have placed in the way.
Son Of Sam | 5.8.09 @ 8:30AM
We the people need to realize that WE are sovereign, and that no court of fallible human beings have the right to dictate what we feel or think or how we live our lives. This whole motley grab bag of unelected and unaccountable judges needs to be reigned in, for the sake our freedom and our children's futures.
stay strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos
Bork| 5.8.09 @ 9:37AM
Lately I've been asking myself, what kind of jerk would defraud a president into thinking he's nominating a judicial conservative, spend the next 19 years mocking that president's choice by deciding cases as a far-left liberal, and then make sure he retires when a far-left liberal president can nominate his replacement? Oh, yeah. David Souter.
Whatever else can be said of David Souter, he has no integrity.
Anthony| 5.8.09 @ 9:38AM
Bob; Given your depiction of this "quirky" man, it's obvious he doesn't give a damn what the liberal intelligencia, and especially, we conservatives think of him. Souter did his damage and the Left has long since gotten over its "we pulled one over on Bush" glee.
The Left can afford not to be magnanimous to this weirdo, they are in complete control now, and as you so brilliantly point out, another ideologue empty suit with a Harvard law degree will choose his replacement. How pathetic, Souter and his president remain clueless about the greatness of the Constitution.
Souter will retire to his faux unibomber hideaway, replete with several copies of Algore's Earth in the Balance. One hopes, given how he inherited his secluded hide away, and his loner life style, that Souter was not a big fan of Alfred Hitchcock.
Todd| 5.8.09 @ 9:39AM
President Bush 1 should be ashamed of himself for appointing this loser misfit, really disgraceful. Anyone who eats an apple core is a weirdo in my book. Say what you what about Bush 2, at least he appointed excellent judges once you got past the Harriet Meirs debacle.
Northern Rebel| 5.8.09 @ 9:57AM
I can't help but smile, because the libs were so fired up, when they realized "President" Teleprompter would be appointing Supreme Court Justices.
Their problem, is the Justices that seek to interpret the Constitution as it is written, are all healthy!
I guess they can replace their activists with younger activists, but they can't change the overall makeup of the court.
By the time the judges that cling to power, ala Specter start dropping, conservatives will probably be the ones replacing them.
Gonna be fun to watch!
Dropping By| 5.8.09 @ 10:04AM
I agree with Todd's comment. If Souter is all that he is said to be, and truly does all that has been reported, it is faintly indecent to pile on as this piece does. Leave him to the privacy he clearly craves.
The real story is what a catastrophe the first George Bush was in foisting this unknown man on the country, what a monumental waste of an opportunity it was, and how Republican "moderates" like George Bush I have atrocious judgment and should never be trusted with any real responsibility, no matter how sincere they appear to be.
jrs240| 5.8.09 @ 10:52AM
The first Bush was a little too clever by half in nominating Souter, who reminds me more of Pa Kettle than a Supreme Court Justice. And the similarity is more than just physical.
Oh, well, I guess the upside is that conservatives don't have to witness the heartbreaking transition from a conservative justice to a lefty. Thank goodness for small mercies.
Skep41 | 5.8.09 @ 12:02PM
What a shameful disgrace. This guy actually lied his way onto the court. I guess we saw with Bork what telling the truth gets a conservative in Washington. Spineless nematodes like this are the maggots that are swarming on the corpse of respect for the law in the Age Of Obamunism. A man without honor, rspect for the truth and reverence for the Constitution. I could carve a better Justice out of a banana. I wonder what kind of fruit his replacement will be molded from?
Ammo Guy| 5.8.09 @ 12:21PM
We have been witness to so many examples of a supposed conservative “growing” into a liberal during their time on the Supreme Court…so, just out of curiosity, can anyone think of an example of the opposite? I sure can’t.
JP| 5.8.09 @ 1:22PM
I believe John Sununu and Warren Rudmann both had a hand in nominating Souter. After the Bork debacle, and continued threats to Bush41 not to nominate another Scalia or Bork, Bush41 made it clear that he wanted someone who would not be easy pickings for Senator Kennedy.
In came Chief of Staff Sununu who knew of a Republican State Supreme Court Justice from his home state. Souter was an odd pick. The only positive thing, at least from Bush's perspective, was his lack of a paper trail. He rarely authored legal opinions of any import, and what made him most appealing was that he never had to rule on any abortion cases.
I would however, lay much of the blame on Dick Thornburgh, Bush's AG. Thornburgh and his staff were obligated to scour Souter's record, interview him in depth in order to get a feel for how he would behave on the bench. This is especially true in Souter's case, as he had no record of really any kind of achievment. If Souter wasn't intellectually gifted enough, or possessed the right legal philosophy, Thornburgh should have found that out through his interviews. Of course, Souter could have lied through his teeth. My thinking is that Thornburgh wasn't that interesting in Souter's legal mind as much as he was getting Souter through the nominating process.
Stephen A. Howell| 5.8.09 @ 1:48PM
If it weren't for conservatives screaming and pounding the table Bush the younger would have put two more vacuous idiots on the court. Don't forget that many of the liberals on court have been put there by Republicans. This is one reason I have changed my affiliation to political Independent. You just can't depend on a Republican to be a Republican. We whelp about the great Ronald Reagan. We only recently divested ourselves of his "conservative" pick for the court. My personal opinion at this point is that Republicans aren't fit to run this country. They just simply do not get it. The bright lights and power of Washington blinds them, if not immediately, as in Arlen Speculator. I am just weary with the whole bunch. Let them eat cake and disappear in the vacuous hole of mediocrity they have created for themselves.
Tim| 5.8.09 @ 2:52PM
When we lost Bork, we lost so much, and now the legacy of that lost opportunity grows even longer.
I will never NEVER vote for anybody named BUSH ever again.
lastonehome | 5.8.09 @ 6:28PM
"aeroplane"-priceless. Makes me wonder if his VW sedan is powered using the "velocitator" and reined in with the "decceleratrix". A memorable article about an insignificant man.
Paul Crowley| 5.8.09 @ 7:34PM
=>"in every supposedly friendly retrospective that I have read of him since he informed the Democratic president that he, a Republican Supreme Court nominee, was retiring," [The Liberals Are Snickering By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 5.8.09 @ 6:08AM]
Tyrell's readings appear to have been quite sparse.
He certainly is a select and limited quoter: Primarily from the "New York Times" and the "Washigton Post."
Of course, what exactly a "supposedly friendly retrospective" means, is only known to Tyrrell. He doesn't tell us what it means.
There have been a number of essays from left-wing writers praising Souter for both his consistency and for his conservativism (however, the one’s that I’ve seen are clearer in their distinctions where the term conservative is concerned and actually reference opinions from lawyers and law reviews).
Tyrell’s essay is terrible if one wants an idea of the praise being given to Justice Souter by the left and left-libertarian. It's great mis-direction, though.
PCP Smoker| 5.8.09 @ 8:02PM
Beautiful.
Three things defined that administration: Souter, heeding the UN on ending the Desert Storm early, and "read my lips...". Losers- both of them.
Yes, Clarence Thomas was the only good thing.
Paul Crowley| 5.8.09 @ 8:30PM
=>“The Liberals Are Snickering” By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 5.8.09 @ 6:08AM]
No. This isn't really true.
From what I've seen, then it's not the left-wing writers and broadcasters who been engaging in "snickering."
It has, in fact, been the right-wing and libertarian writers who have done the most "snickering."
This includes this political essay by Tyrell and the comments posted with it here at "The American Spectator."
It also includes the "Washington Post," a favorite forum of libertarian writers.
And why not?
Where the libertarians, the self-named neo-conservatives, and the paleo-libertarian-named paleo-conservative fronts, are concerned, then Justice Suter:
Has Been Their Man.
These are the new “conservatives” of the new Post-Cold War "Conservative Movement:" Marxist, ex-Marxist, & new post-1969 libertarian movement mal-formed new "conservatives."
These are the crudly literalist conservatives, who primarily seek to conserve the gains of the social revolution, and reform of the U.S.A., of the past 45 years.
Paul Crowley| 5.8.09 @ 8:37PM
=>"heeding the UN on ending the Desert Storm early" [PCP Smoker| 5.8.09 @ 8:02PM]
Operaton Desert Storm was part of the United Nations organization (UN) eviction of Iraq from Kuwait in 1991.
It was not 'ended early,' it was completed.
Paul Crowley| 5.8.09 @ 9:53PM
=>“But through all Souter’s years here in Washington he revealed himself to be a stupendously self-absorbed oddball and not much else.” [The Liberals Are Snickering By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 5.8.09 @ 6:08AM]
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the “founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator.”
“The American Spectator” obtains its income, how?
->Justice Souter
No wonder then that it has, in fact, been the right- ing and libertarian writers who have done the most "snickering" where Justice Souter is concerned.
Except for honest readers who have trusted and are being misled by these people, then no one should be surprised at their almost-psychotic focus on the trivialities of how Justice Souter, may, or may not, live in his PERSONAL life.
Snickering dominates the political essay by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr,. and the comments posted with it, here at "The American Spectator."
Where social and domestic issues, and the mechanics of the American form of government, are concerned, then honest readers, who trust it, will have a hard time actually learning something of real use from "The American Spectator" these days.
As I said, Tyrell’s political essay, like most in "The American Spectator" these days is great mis-direction, and little else.
As to the right-wing and libertarian writers who have dominance today, and have done the most "snickering" where Justice Souter is concerned, then, if one looks closely, then he should not be surprised at the MIS-DIRECTION of the professional writers and broadcasters of the Post-Cold War (1989-present) "Conservative Movement."
The leaders, and the lesserling scholars and political hack writers and broadcasters that are used by them, are contradictions in terms: “Conservatives” formed by Marxists, ex-Marxists, & post-1969 libertarian movement; the libertarians only came to prominence only post-1989.
Justice Souter Has Been Their Man. He has been their kind of "conservative."
Paul Crowley| 5.8.09 @ 10:09PM
=>“But through all Souter’s years here in Washington he revealed himself to be a stupendously self-absorbed oddball and not much else.” [R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr]
Justice Souter has been completely consistent, his entire time as a Supereme Court Justice over the past 19 years.
Justice Souter’s decisions and opinions as a Supreme Court Justice have been consistently conservative, in the sense of not overturning previous rulings and precedents.
***
Judicial Activism and Legislating From The Bench.
For the past 20 years, Right-wing and libertarian wrters and broadcasters, and Republican Party politicians, have popularized the phrases “Judicial Activism” and “Legislating From The Bench.”
The were especially loud circa 1989-99, and have raised it periodically since.
Simultaneously, the same people have consistantly decried, and called for an end, to this “Judicial Activism” and “Legislating From The Bench.”
[In reality, there is no such thing as “Legislating From The Bench.” The legislative branch, federal or state, in and by itself, has no such ability. The legislative and executive branches of our government are required. This is beginning to be pointed out in the popular press again].
Justice Souter has never been what could be termed a "judicial activist,” and neither can he be accused of ever supporting, or facilitating, ANYTHING that could be described as “Legislating From The Bench.”
Justice Souter’s rulings and opinions have consistenly upheld the rulings, and associated precedents, of the U.S. Supreme Court, that preceded his time as a Supreme Court Justice (pre-1989).
The legal principle Souter has coinsistently held to is is summed up by the Latin word, stare decisis (i.e. Let The Decision Stand).
Justice Souter has consistently held to this principle, especially (and unsurprisingly) in the cases based on Supreme Court decisions of the post-1953 Warren Court, and U.S.
Supreme Court decisions based upon its rulings, 1953-89.
I say "unsurprisingly" because these have been the most social revolutionary, have been the most used to reform our legal code, and have been the most challenged.
For instance, Justice Suter’s decisons in cases the the court has heard, and ruled on, in which he was a member, helped to conserve the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe versus Wade decision of 1973 and the subsequent decisions made, and precedents, based upon it.
Angel| 5.8.09 @ 10:32PM
It's a travesty that Robert Bork's not on the Supreme Court. Our country is the worse for it because of his absence.
Paul Crowley| 5.8.09 @ 11:24PM
=>"Yes, Clarence Thomas was the only good thing" [PCP Smoker| 5.8.09 @ 8:02PM]
Now we're talking “judicial activism.” The same with Justice Scalia.
The latter has been especially useful in incorporating the decisions and precedents of International and foreign courts into the new reformed (and still reforming) legal code of the U.S.A.
These justices are relatively young, so we’ll have to wait a bit yet for their praise, and explanations, from the left-wing element of the popular print and broadcast media. We’ll just have to continue to put up with the misdirection of all of the elements of the popular mass-communications media, and leaders of the various popular movements, left, right, libertarian, and whatever. . . One batch decrying the 'radical conservatives' and the other cheering the 'conservatives' (it's all social revolutionary now).
At any rate, it would appear that the U.S. Supreme Court will probably be shifting to a more activist role from here on, in the manner of the old Warren Court.
Paul Crowley| 5.8.09 @ 11:26PM
=>Angel| 5.8.09 @ 10:32PM
Hi Angel:
Long time no see!
What are you doing home on a Friday night?
Trackback| 5.8.09 @ 11:50PM
The American Spectator : The Liberals Are Snickeri..., on dutiful, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Paul Crowley| 5.8.09 @ 11:58PM
=>“It's a travesty that Robert Bork's not on the Supreme Court. Our country is the worse for it because of his absence.” [Angel| 5.8.09 @ 10:32PM]
Hi Angel:
The thought of missed opportunities can be a temptation. Especially the never were and died young varieties.
However, as is always the case with such hypotheticals, it’s purely academic.
As is often the case, then at this point, I think that it’s near impossible to know what kind of Supreme Court Justice Judge Bork would, or wouldn’t have been?
His over-all life as a judge was too inconsistent. He went from “activist” to “conservative.” He’s gone through a number of different ideologies in the course of his life, some very eclectic and idiosyncratic.
Hence why I think that it’s near impossible to know what kind of Supreme Court Justice Judge Bork would, or wouldn’t have been in the past 19 years.
You're a Californian. Your governor-before-last was Major of San Diego, the last time that I lived there (but I wasn't a resident). It's been over 20 years since I've been back . . With all that you folks have been put through in the past 4 decades, then you should be writing this to me! :) .
You guys are really this dumb?| 5.9.09 @ 12:32AM
He fell far short of the liberals’ conception of a progressive Supreme Court dissenter, to wit: a charismatic, outspoken, slightly outré intellectual on the model of William O. Douglas.
Oh, we didnt care, we had his vote. Sucks to be you all. Considering he was a Bush appointee, he was solid gold. He even waited til Bush's son was gone to retire. Good man.
Youre trying to make this a liberal loss somehow? I mean, really?
Angel| 5.9.09 @ 12:44AM
Hi Paul. Hope all is well. I do think Bork would have been an excellent Supreme Court Justice--but regardless, he was treated abominably by the feckless liberals. Bored--that's what I'm doing home on a Friday night. ;)
Paul Crowley| 5.9.09 @ 2:29AM
=>“Hi Paul. Hope all is well.” [Angel| 5.9.09 @ 12:44AM]
Hi Angel:
I’m doing real well, thanks. I hope that you’re doing the same!
->Bored--that's what I'm doing home on a Friday night. ;)
This sounds more like a consequence of being home on a Friday night, rather than a reason to be. . . Sorry, I doubt that chatting about Bork is helping to change this any! :)
->“regardless, he was treated abominably by the feckless liberals.”
I agree with you.
No hypotheticals here. This much is history.
Although, how feckless, I don't know. Our current Vice President, Joseph ("Joe") Biden, then Senator, used it to good affect for bad purposes.
Good affect: i.e. he was successful at using elements of the proceedings.
James| 5.9.09 @ 3:23PM
Obama, Specter, Souter. . . . Our country is in the hands of malicious incompetents.
Angel| 5.9.09 @ 3:24PM
Paul, I was trying to be economical with my words and 'bored' conveyed the essence of my state of mind. And, yes, conversing about the Honorable Robert Bork did nothing to assuage my boredom. :) However, today's a brighter day, have a great weekend! Angel
Trackback| 12.1.09 @ 9:13PM
new hampshire credit repair, on new hampshire credit repair, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
kalaw | 11.16.10 @ 9:48AM
No hypotheticals here. This much is history.