Talk:David Souter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criticism

I've got some extreme reservations about having that Criticism section placed there mentioning that Hotel of Lost Liberties/Logan Clements deal. It would be better to just mention his home being possessed and place a link to the Hotel/Logan Clements article. I see no need to have 3 of the same paragraphs repeated on 3 different articles. A very Brief mention about Souter's residence being in the news and a link would be sufficient. --Selfexiled 11:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Why is even that appropriate? Souter's jurisprudence has been criticized (and praised) on many different grounds; this is a transient matter based on a publicity stunt. To suggest that this is the only noteworthy criticism of Souter's career is simply a display of ignorance. Delete it. Judge Magney 23:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

One recent contributer reintroduced it, claiming some sort of malfeasance by Judge Magney relating to the Kelo decision. I agree with you both and don't think that it should be included. The little publicity stunt is particularly irrelevant, but the reference to the decision is silly also because he didn't write the opinion. Unless someone else does, and pending any objection, I'll go ahead and delete in a few days. Geoff.green 01:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Im not sure if I should add that Justice Souter has a repuatation of being a shy person, or if this is even a criticism.

--

Since the people who want to seize Souter's farm have now gathered enough signatures (25) to put this on the March 2006 ballot, I think it warrants being mentioned in the article. Does anyone agree? --JamesB3 16:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It led a national news broadcast I heard last night, and as it gets closer to the referendum it will certainly continue to be reported. Please be bold and add it. Jonathunder 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. While Souter's extreme privacy is of interest, loonies trying to seize his farm really don't center in who he is. If this becomes a thing, and we're still hearing about it in three years, sure, maybe then it will warrant inclusion. Now, however, it is nothing more than wackos trying to influence the Court. I don't think we should show them respect by including them in the article anymore than sport television should show loonies who run out onto the field. Vincent Vecera 14:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree as well. We can always add if the referendum passes (in which case we should, as it is a major part of Souter's career and life no doubt). But as far as most of us should be concerned, this is a slight bit of trivia that has no place in a reference. Selfexiled 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the Souter-defenders above miss the larger point of the movement to attempted seizure Souter’s house. Odd I should have to point this out to people who refer to their own alleged high intelligence, but Souter and the other liberal justices took away other peoples houses. Souter did so in his official capacity and in clear unmistakable VIOLATION of the plain meaning of the United States Constitution. He and the other justices reinvented the word "public use" to mean something other than "public use" as written by the forefathers. And for some to attempt to expunge the record of this misdeed, this clear abuse and overreach of the authority of his office, smacks of revisionism.--69.37.125.45 03:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Revisionism? Nothing of the sort. Kelo was nothing new. Kelo was merely an affirmatives of the status quo. (hint: it's called the "takings" clause, not the "public use" clause. Souter just happens to be one of the judges who believe the Supreme Court should generally follow their own precedents. Which they more or less what they should do, unless we want the assumptions of the legal system being rocked one way or another every five years. The democratically enacted legislature "took away people's houses." This time they didn't just take poor people's houses. I weep, I weep at the inequity of it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.150.47 (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take the discussion to your userpages or other Internet forums. There is no need to discuss individual Supreme Court cases here, unless it directly impacts this article.--Gloriamarie (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

link re High School is in error

Just wanted to point out that the link to "Concord High School" takes the viewer to a school in North Carolina. In point of fact, David went to Concord High School in Concord, N. H., graduating in 1957 (as did I). This link should either be removed or changed!

I encourage you to be bold and make the change. Welcome to wikipedia. Jonathunder 21:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

developing story...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4639374.stm Ingenious, in my opinion. Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. If it gets off the ground (it's already on the ballot and only a majority vote away from happening) it's worth a mention. --AK7 17:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Biased Summary

Isn't calling a brilliant, respected jurist like Justice William Brennan an "ideologue" show a bit of political bias? He was a more strident liberal than Souter, to be sure, but was he really (as the OED defines "ideologue") "an adherent of an ideology, esp. one who is uncompromising and dogmatic : a Nazi ideologue." The word choice seems to be very unfair and slanted.

Do you know who Brennan was? 208.111.220.125 (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Eminent domain kooks

Some nuts are obessed with blaming Souter, but a majority of Justices agreed that each state can choose to hhave or not have the state power to condemn land to prevent holdouts from extorting the rest of the community by preventing economic development. If the citizens of South Dakota want to hinder development and enact iron clad private property laws, then they outlaw eminent domain. All the High Court said was that the federal courts will not prevent state governments from deciding what constitutes public use. John wesley 13:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the 2006 official court picture Justice Souter took should be posted instead of the old photo on the top of his biography page

Is it public domain? What is the link to it? Jonathunder 21:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont know, but I believe it can easily be found somwhere. I think a updated picture would be better than one that is nearly 15 years old. Just a suggestion. Thanks

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4879294 more official and recent pic, should post

That is an Associated Press photograph. The current photo attached to this article is his official portrait, which is why other sites that rely on public domain photographs of the justices such as Oyez use this old photo as well.--DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 22:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Souter Pronounciation

For some reason, I've always pronounced it "Sewter", but I've heard it pronounced "Sowter" as well. Which is correct? Mattbrundage 14:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sewter.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 06:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Why is this article entitled David Hackett Souter not David Souter? Surely the latter is the most widely used, as required by WP:NC(CN). And given that David Souter redirects, I can't see evidence of a naming conflict. Unless I hear a good reason, I propose to move it back. -- Lincolnite 00:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That caught my eye as well. Turns out there was an Australian David Henry Souter. I've made that clear at the top of the article. --Ken Gallager 14:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the Offical Biography at the United States Supreme Court site, unlike many justices, he prefers to use his middle name. The other is John Paul Stevens.--DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 22:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend moving it back. According to page views, no one knows his middle name. There are 19215 hits on David Souter,[1] only 3110 on David Hackett Souter.[2] 199.125.109.28 (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Google shows 138,000 hits for David Souter and only 9,290 for David Hackett Souter. 199.125.109.28 (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Alma Mater

Someone want to add it? I dont know how —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.105.46 (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-considering 1st paragraph edit?

I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent edit of this article -- not that I'm sure that the data are necessarily "wrong." Rather, I'm persuaded that the strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is an unhelpful approach to this specific subject. I note that articles about other sitting Justices have been similarly "enhanced;" and I also believe those changes are no improvement.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, I would invite anyone to re-visit articles written about the following pairs of jurists.

• A1. Benjamin Cardozo
• A2. Learned Hand

• B1. John Marshall Harlan
• B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

At a minimum, I'm questioning this edit? It deserves to be reconsidered. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC) ]\

List of United States Chief Justices by time in office

Obviously, David Souter was never Chief Justice. He is one of 110 Justices in the history of the court, and only 18 have been C.J. See List of United States Chief Justices by time in office, I put this in to "See also" because it provides the larger context, and could be useful for the readers. Indeed, a lot of the material on the Supreme Court is conceptualized and organized by or around the presence of a particular Chief Justice It is relevant, although evidently not to one critic, who could disregard that list if he chooses. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Stan

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/David Hackett Souter was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Souter a Liberal?

I am making a subtle distinction here in Souter's entry, but Souter is not a "liberal" justice in the sense of a William Brennan, a Thurgood Marshall, or even a Harry Blackmun. He is however, a liberal on this court. That is an important distinction to make. On the Burger court, Justice Stevens was the quintessential moderate. However, during the last 10 years or so, Stevens is probably the most liberal of the justices. Has his judicial philosophy changed? I would argue that it hasn't. It's just that the other justices surrounding Stevens on this court has now made him the most liberal.

If Scalia and Kennedy retired from this court, and Obama appointed two liberal justices, Souter would at that point be considered a "moderate," and would probably be one of the swing votes on that court.Asc85 (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

John Paul Stevens

The page says the JPS is the "most liberal" member of the court? That's clearly impossible to verify and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.31.227 (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article is a great example of why wikipedia is garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.234.62 (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have edited to hopefully achieve a more netural viewpoint.

National Review

A number of the sentences about Souter's court record are attributed to a National Review article. Since that's a highly partisan magazine, I think more support should be found or the sentences should be revised or deleted. Wbkelley (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Bush v. Gore and the "rule of law"

The majority's claim is that their decision was based on the "rule of law", which I don't recall Souter disagreeing with. He disagreed with the decision, but not that the majority's decision was based on the "rule of law". Hence something would be relevant here. However, I don't know exactly what....

Of course, if my recollection is incorrect, and Souter disagreement that the majority opinion was based on the "rule of law", then there's nothing to be said. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this one paragraph really the place to detail the reason for each of the justice's votes? Surely that is best covered in Bush v. Gore? The words "based on the rule of law" have been added to that statement many times, and have been reverted by many editors. I agree with one undoing editor who wrote in their summary that it reads like "editorial commentary". I believe that the statement is much more neutral without it.  ⊃°HotCROCODILE...... (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is absurd. All Supreme Court decisions are based on "the rule of law", whether it's Bush v. Gore or Roe v. Wade or Miranda v. Arizona. You might as well have a sentence saying that the decision was "written with words". bd2412 T 18:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, surely all judges (not just the Supreme Court) would say that their actions are "based on the rule of law"? Isn't that a judge's raison d'être?  ⊃°HotCROCODILE...... (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Retirement Timing

Now that the Court's term is over, as of 17 minutes ago, is Souter no longer a Justice? I believe he semi-bucked tradition by writing to the President that he intended to retire "when the Court rises for its summer recess." Is it time to change the article into the past tense? Vbdrummer0 (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Note the quote in the article that he intends to stay on until his successor is confirmed; it's possible that that won't have happened by the time the court reconvenes in October, so it's best to leave it in present tense for now. --Jfruh (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Although there was initially speculation that Justice Souter would make his retirement effective upon his successor's confirmation (as many, though not all, prior Justices have done when retiring), in actuality he did not choose to do this. His retirement letter stated that he would be leaving the Court at the beginning of the summer recess, with no mention of waiting for a successor; his retirement, effective immediately, was announced yesterday (June 29) in open court; and a new allotment order for circuit assignments was entered, assigning other Justices to serve as Circuit Justices for the First and Third Circuits, which were previously assigned to him. It is fair to say that Justice Souter is no longer a Member of the Court as of today. (As noted in the article, he still holds the status of Associate Justice, Retired, meaning that he is eligible to sit by designation as a judge on lower federal courts, and he indicated in his retirement letter that he expects to do so. I suspect we will see him on a First Circuit panel sometime after the summer.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

use of template:cquote

Please do not use template:cquote for quotes that are not of David Souter, as this give too much weight to other's words.Scientus (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Retirement date

With regard to the effective date of Justice Souter's retirement, please see the discussion at Talk:David Souter/Archive 1#Retirement Timing. For the reasons discussed there, June 29, 2009 is the date that should be used. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Mugging

Did his mugging on May 1, 2004, influence his decision to retire?Lestrade (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Simpsons Reference?

Can we work the nod from the Simpsons in Episode ? - Homer Goes To College —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.109.157 (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Souter's views on the danger facing America

Souter recently expressed his fears concerning America's future: http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/1aef60a5f3c842cd81202966308d6455/NH--Souter-Seminar. Perhpas this should be put into the article.Kdammers (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

1st Circuit

Can anyone verify that he is serving as a visiting judge for the 1st circuit court of appeals? 146.115.44.230 (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I read the same in a recent piece on Justice Stevens; I believe it stated something along the lines of "unlike his fellow retired Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter, who have enjoyed their work on federal appeals courts, Justice Stevens states that he has no intention of serving..." Since Justice Souter lives in New England, it would make sense that he would serve on the First Circuit if he served on any at all. NW (Talk) 01:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I added /*Post-Supreme Court career*/ and included a comment in the source:

This is a repitition of a claim from First_Circuit#Senior but unfortunately the citation there is defective, so I hesitate to repeat it -- it cites the First Circuit's PDF calendar, which updates every month or so. At present it has no references to Souter, meaning he is not sitting by designation on any cases in the first two weeks of September 2012. But it is easy to find examples of his service, like http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-1549U.01A, an opinion he authored dated Aug. 22, 2012. I hesitate to offer citations to a pile of such opinions, since that comes kind of close to WP:NOR. jhawkinson (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

there are also plenty of blog posts about it that don't seem appropriate for citations, like http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2012/08/justice-souter-not-as-retired-as-we.html. Also, this somewhat dated article "Souter Returns to the Granite State: Retired justice rejects D.C. office space, sets up new life in New Hampshire," [3] (Tony Mauro, The National Law Journal, August 17, 2009) suggests that he continues to maintain an office at the federal courthouse for the District of New Hampshire in Concord, though there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that on Court's web page as of 2012, which probably can't be construed as meaningful either way. jhawkinson (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't sat since September and the 2010 annual report came out then with a summary of his 2010 sittings on the circuit, so there's now a decent citation. Updated and I've struck the above comment from the source of the main page. jhawkinson (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

But he is on next week's calendar, sitting Tue-Thu of next week, Jan. 8-10. jhawkinson (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

He's now written several opinions for the First Circuit. There is also relevant discussion in Jeffrey Toobin's new book, The Oath. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Souter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131221172824/http://www.concord.k12.nh.us/alumni/hist/disting/notables.htm to http://www.concord.k12.nh.us/alumni/hist/disting/notables.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Masters degree

What does "as per tradition" mean here? "later promoted to a Master of Arts degree, as per tradition"

Also it wasn't cited and I couldn't find any additional info online. I think this should be clarified.

-KaJunl (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC) KaJunl (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly explained by the linked article, Master of Arts (Oxbridge and Dublin) in the first paragraph: In the universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Dublin, Bachelors of Arts with Honours of these universities are promoted to the degree of Master of Arts or Master in Arts (MA) on application after six or seven years' seniority as members of the university (including years as an undergraduate). jhawkinson (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. TIL. Had assumed the linked article was a general master's degree article, hadn't realized it was a more specific article than that. Do we assume everyone applies for this, or is there a source citing he has the master's? Just curious. -KaJunl (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)