
David Souter obituary
Bush had previously considered a number of conservative ideologues: Senator Orrin Hatch, future Bill Clinton nemesis Kenneth Starr and Clarence Thomas (whose nomination was widely assumed to be held until the retirement of Thurgood Marshall, since both were black). As the Democrats held a 55-45 Senate majority, and in 1987 rejected Ronald Reagan's choice, Robert Bork, for being an unrepentant ideologue, when the New Hampshire senator, Warren Rudman, recommended Souter to Sununu, he seemed a safe pair of conservative hands. He also had the advantage of having served quietly in his home state, without leaving a paper trail of controversy on national issues.
The open seat had been vacated by William Brennan, for decades the court's liberal bastion. Republicans already held a nominal 6-2 advantage in justices, and aimed to overturn abortion rights established by the 1973 Roe v Wade decision. Souter's nomination brought protests from the National Organization for Women, as well as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, who questioned his commitment to enforcing civil rights legislation. Still, the senate judiciary committee endorsed Souter 13-1; the Senate confirmed his nomination 90-9. All nine dissenting votes came from Democrats, including Ted Kennedy, who compared Souter to Bork. Few had noticed when, during his hearing, Souter explained to Republican senator Chuck Grassley that 'courts must accept their own responsibility for making a just society'.
So conservatives were confounded when, in 1992's Planned Parenthood v Casey, which was intended to end the right to abortion, Souter joined the court's two remaining 'liberals', Harry Blackmun (who had written the Roe v Wade decision) and John Paul Stevens, but also fellow Republican appointees Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor to reject Casey. Souter's part of the decision developed eloquently from the notion of stare decisis, or respecting precedent, and was crucial to giving those conservative members of the so-called 'troika' justification for their decisions.
The right felt betrayed; Sununu later claimed Souter deceived him about his true politics, ignoring perhaps Rudman's evaluation that 'we don't discuss politics because David doesn't know about politics'. The rallying cry 'No More Souters' began an era of vetting Republican nominees for ideological purity by the Federalist Society. When Roe v Wade was overturned in 2022's Dobbs v Jackson WHO decision, all six justices voting for repeal were Republicans appointed after Stouter, all of whom had professed allegiance to stare decisis in their hearings.
In retrospect, Souter's 'move' had many precedents, from Chief Justice Earl Warren to both Stevens and Blackmun; it was not so much that Souter became more liberal, but the centre of the court moved further to the right. Souter's own resistance to this should have been more apparent from his history.
David Hackett Souter was born 17 September 1939 in Melrose, Massachusetts, the home town of his father, Joseph, a bank officer. When David was 11, the family moved to a farmhouse in Weare, New Hampshire inherited by his mother, Helen (nee Adams), who traced her ancestry back to the Mayflower. After high school in Concord, Souter graduated from Harvard in philosophy. He wrote his senior thesis on the towering supreme court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who espoused 'legal positivism', arguing that social facts outweighed natural law, and must be accepted to change as social reality changed. As a Rhodes scholar he received an MA in jurisprudence at Magdalen College, Oxford, and returned to Harvard to take a law degree in 1966.
Bored with two years in private practice in Concord, he was appointed an assistant attorney general of New Hampshire by the then-governor Meldrim Thompson, a leading light among conservative republicans. Rudman became attorney general in 1970, and took Souter under his wing; when he stepped down in 1976, Souter, still only 36, replaced him. In 1978 he joined New Hampshire's superior court; in 1983 a seat on the state supreme court followed. After his 1990 election, Bush named Souter to the US court of appeals for the first circuit (eastern New England and Puerto Rico). He'd barely moved into his Boston office when he was called to Washington to discuss the supreme court seat.
Souter's position on the court's liberal side was cemented by chief justice William Rehnquist's moves through the 1990s to reduce the court's influence over the states. Anthony Kennedy, though a staunch conservative, became the 'swing' vote. The apotheosis of this schism arrived in the 2000 Bush v Gore case, in which Kennedy's was the fifth vote in a 5-4 decision that stopped the recount of presidential votes in Florida, in effect declaring George W Bush the president. Jeffrey Toobin's 2007 book, The Nine, says the decision was 'so transparently political that it scarred Souter's belief in the supreme court as an institution'.
Souter never joined Washington society, eschewing the sometimes lavish hospitality directed at justices. Each summer he drove himself back to the house in Weare he shared with his mother, until she died in 1995. He avoided modern media in favour of books; he wrote his decisions in longhand with a fountain pen. As his supreme court colleague Stephen Breyer remarked in 2021, 'he writes clearly for an important reason. He possesses great common sense.' Yet when appointed to the US circuit court, his successor as New Hampshire attorney general, Thomas Rath, had to take him to a bank to help him obtain a credit card.
He retired early, aged 69, waiting until 2009 so that Barack Obama could appoint a liberal justice, Sonia Sotomayor. He returned to serving on panels for the first circuit. He largely steered clear of the public eye, though a 2012 lecture he gave in Concord, warning of the dangers of 'civic ignorance', has been cited many times as a foreshadowing of Donald Trump's presidencies. Eventually he moved from Weare to nearby Hopkinton, and a house whose structure was strong enough to hold his collection of books.
David Hackett Souter, lawyer and jurist, born 17 September 1939; died 8 May 2025
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
With Trump wreaking havoc, a question for the US Democrats: when will you ever learn?
Nothing is more insufferable than someone saying 'I told you so'; so please forgive me for being insufferable. On 29 September 2023, after a couple of months spent in the US, I published a column that was well summarised in its Guardian headline: 'Unless Joe Biden stands aside, the world must prepare for President Trump 2.0'. We can never definitely say 'what would have happened if …?', but there's a very good chance that had Biden cleared the way for a Democratic primary in autumn 2023 the strongest candidate could have defeated Trump. The entire world would have been spared the disaster now unfolding. 'No use crying over spilt milk,' you may say. Yes, but it's always worth learning lessons for the future. I'm back in the US now, and a recent poll for the Wall Street Journal found that 63% of voters hold an unfavourable view of the Democratic party. To put it mildly, the Democrats have a way to go. So what, given all that is happening and everything we now know, are the right lessons? The point of mentioning my old column is not to boast of some special insider insight into Washington high politics; the point is precisely that I had none. It was just obviously crazy to put up a visibly old and frail candidate who would be 86 years old by the end of his second term. For comparison, the leaders of the Soviet Union who we think of as the epitome of decrepit gerontocracy were, at their respective moments of unlamented demise, 75 (Leonid Brezhnev), 69 (Yuri Andropov) and 73 (Konstantin Chernenko). It required no special knowledge to see this and most Americans already did. By the time I wrote my column, an opinion poll had found that 77% of Americans thought Biden was too old to be president for another four years. It was only the political insiders, the liberal commentariat, the Democratic establishment, who went on agreeing with the president, his family and what was (you couldn't make this up) actually known informally as the 'politburo' of his closest advisers that he was the only man for the job. In their recent, much noticed book, Original Sin, two leading Washington journalists, CNN's Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson of Axios, argue that there was, as their subtitle suggests, a cover up. Biden's family and the politburo tried to hide his precipitate cognitive decline, confining most of his meetings to between 10am and 4pm. Even cabinet members did not see him up close for many months and in-depth media interviews were as rare as a Pride parade in the Vatican. The authors generously apportion blame to the president, his wife, other family members and his closest advisers, but there's one set of people they curiously spare: themselves and their fellow Washington insider journalists. Now, I haven't gone back over all their reporting on CNN and Axios, and there are certainly some pieces that should be cited to defend their journalistic record. But there is no doubt that American political journalists in general, and the liberal commentariat in particular, were slow and late to say what most 'ordinary' Americans had long since seen. Why? The New York Times writer Ezra Klein digs into this in an episode of his excellent podcast. Frankly acknowledging that his own February 2024 call for Biden to stand aside was 'late', Klein explores in conversation with Tapper why most others were even later. The answer seems to be a mix of ingredients: journalistic fear of losing access; the vindictive tribalism of the Democratic establishment; deference to an imperial presidency; fear of Donald Trump; worry about Kamala Harris as the presumptive alternative candidate. Fear of losing access is a professional disease of journalism. 'You felt like you were destroying all of your relationships with the White House all at once,' says Klein, recalling his February 2024 demarche. 'Yes, not just with the White House but the Democratic party,' adds Tapper. My own September 2023 notebook sums up a private conversation with a Washington-based columnist: 'Yes, Biden should stand aside. He [the columnist] can't say it.' (My note continues: 'Jill Biden could, but she likes it.') I know, also from other sources, just how threatening the Democratic establishment could be when trying to close down any questioning of Biden's fitness to serve a second term. Even in the critical articles that did appear in US media there was a kind of residual deference to the presidency, almost as though they were asking a king to abdicate rather than just another politician to stand aside. Partly this stems from the 237-year-old US constitutional device of rolling your prime minister and monarch into one. In Britain, we confine our residual deference to the monarch while the prime minister gets roasted every Wednesday at prime minister's questions in the House of Commons. Someone in Biden's 2023 state of dotage wouldn't have survived two weeks in Westminster. Then there's the fact that people were already panicking about Trump and it was somehow thought, especially after Democratic successes in the 2022 midterm elections, that Biden was the only guy to beat him. The more so since the presumptive alternative was Harris, who was seen as a relatively weak candidate. And so, for fear of getting Harris and then Trump, they got Harris and then Trump. Some lessons, then, are clear. Tapper and Thompson open their book with a quotation from George Orwell: 'To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle.' But Orwell also calls on us always to say what we do see, even if – no, especially if – it's uncomfortable for our own side. There's the double test for journalists: see it and say it. For the Democratic establishment: don't try to intimidate the media into self-censorship with the argument that they are giving succour to the enemy. You would have been better served by journalists just doing their job, in the spirit of Orwell. Then: change out your old guard. Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, is older than Chernenko and rapidly catching up on Brezhnev. Oh yes, and simply listen to the people you're meant to represent. The tragedy of this whole story is that the Democrats have a profusion of talent in younger generations – from Pete Buttigieg, Josh Shapiro, Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom to New York's new star, Zohran Mamdani. They don't yet have the shared platform that could win a presidential election, but thinkers such as Klein and Derek Thompson, co-authors of Abundance, the other book of the moment, are already working up some good ideas. The Democrats can probably swing the House of Representatives in the midterm elections next year with a few fresh faces – and by focusing on the already visible negative consequences of Trump for working- and middle-class Americans. But by 2027, in the run-up to the next presidential election, they will need everything they so spectacularly failed to produce in 2023. Timothy Garton Ash is a historian, political writer and Guardian columnist


Reuters
41 minutes ago
- Reuters
German finance minister to push for steel quotas on Washington trip
BERLIN, Aug 4 (Reuters) - German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil will advocate for a quota system on steel exports to be included in the EU's trade deal with the United States at a meeting with his U.S. counterpart, Scott Bessent, later on Monday, he told a radio broadcaster. "There is talk of a quota system for steel, and it would be good if there were one," Klingbeil told Deutschlandfunk radio on Monday before his planned meeting in Washington. There are a number of chapters that have not yet been finalised in the trade deal struck, said Klingbeil, and steel is a particularly important issue for the German economy and jobs. "I will test out what steps the American government is prepared to take and what the solution might look like," said Klingbeil, even though the EU is responsible for negotiations. The EU's trade deal with Trump in July was greeted with a mix of relief and anger, with tariffs set at 15% for most products but negotiations continuing for certain sectors, including steel and aluminium, which carry tariffs of 50%. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz had said on Friday the EU will negotiate with the United States on steel, with a focus on quotas that can be exported without too high tariffs. Klingbeil also urged quick clarification of other outstanding details in the trade dispute, including the investments promised by the EU and in the energy sector. "It should happen in the next few days," he said.


Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Boost to socialist NYC mayor hopeful as the Big Apple's most conservative borough swings his way
Socialist New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has received a huge boost as Democratic leaders in even the city's most conservative borough publicly backed the controversial nominee. Staten Island Democrats announced this week they are supporting the 33-year-old in the general election after previously backing his moderate rival, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, during the primary in June. The former governor is now running in the general election on an independent along with incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, while Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa runs on the Republican line. Explaining why the Staten Island Democratic Party has swung for Mamdani, Chairwoman Laura LoBianco told the New York Post: 'Zohran is the Democratic nominee. The voters have spoken.' 'We want to work together. I want to make sure Staten Island has a seat at the table,' she added. The announcement comes weeks after Brooklyn Democrat chairwoman Rodneyse Bichotte, who also endorsed Cuomo during the primary election, shared her support for the '100 percent communist' following his primary victory. Mamdani has also been in contact with party leaders in Queens, particularly those who represent black neighborhoods that largely went for Cuomo during the primary. 'While Zohran builds real support across all five boroughs, Cuomo's campaign is withering as New Yorkers learn he stands for absolutely nothing but his own ambition, dogged by scandal, corruption and a record of sexual harassment and humiliation,' a spokesperson for Mamdani's campaign has said. Mamdani has campaigned on a series of woke policies that would drastically reshape the City that Never Sleeps. He has said he wants to raise taxes on millionaires and corporations by $9 billion to subsidize his plans for fare-free buses, free child care and housing. Mamdani, who is currently serving in the New York State Legislature, also wants to spend $65 million on transgender care and has pushed populist ideas including grocery stores that would be owned by the city. Additionally, the controversial figure has advocated for defunding the city's police department - but vowed to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he were to set foot in the Big Apple. Mamdani seemed to double down on those remarks by expressing his support to 'globalize the intifada' - and defending the controversial phrase, which many see as a call for violence against Israeli and Jewish people around the world. Yet LoBianco Sword said Mamdani's messaging is clearly getting through to the public as she praised the socialist candidate for bringing new voters into the Democratic Party. She then went on to argue that Mamdani has correctly identified the problems plaguing the city, claiming that whether or not voters agree with his plan for government-run grocery stores it is evident that there are 'food deserts' in the city. When she was then asked about Mamdani's plans to raise taxes, LoBianco Sword said she agreed that the wealthy 'should pay their fair share.' In an effort to further his base, Mamdani is now planning a large general election campaign launch on August 17 on Staten Island. He is apparently hoping to close the gap between him and the former governor, who narrowly beat Mamdani in the primary - with 46.5 percent of the vote compared to 37.5 percent during the initial round of ranked-choice voting. But Staten Island Republican Chairman Michael Tannousis said he still does not see the island going for Mamdani in the general as he blasted the Democrat's support for the socialist candidate as a 'shotgun wedding.' Instead, Tannousis said he believes many moderate Democrats will vote for Sliwa, who won 65 percent of the vote in the borough against Adams in 2021, when Adams ran as a Democrat. 'There is no appetite for socialism and the socialist agenda,' he argued. 'Curtis will win Staten Island,' the state assemblyman added. 'He may get a bigger vote than four years ago.' 'Staten Islanders will have a choice: either the Mamdani socialist Democrats or the Republican ticket.' Sliwa also told the Post: 'If I lose Staten Island, shame on me. It's a real battleground but I've been there forever.' He then went on to suggest Staten Islanders would never forgive current Mayor Eric Adams for bringing migrant shelters into the borough and argued that Cuomo is running on his legacy - making him the only viable rival to Mamdani. Meanwhile, a representative for the Cuomo campaign called Mamdan the second coming of former Mayor Bill de Blasio - and not in a good way. Spokesman Rich Azzopardi said the socialist 'reeks of insecurity' and has a 'history of anti-cop, anti-capitalist rhetoric that will go over as well on Staten Island as Bill de Blasio eating pizza with a fork and a knife. 'Ladies and gentlemen: Bill de Blasio 2.0,' he argued. But late night host Bill Maher has seemed to suggest Mamdani may be worse, as he warned that the Democratic Party is headed for collapse if it continues to appease radical leftists like the New York City mayoral hopeful. Speaking during the Overtime segment of his show Real Time with Bill Maher on YouTube, the comedian said Democrats are gripped by an 'identity crisis' and running out of time to choose a side. 'The world is a complicated place and it's not just about oppressor and oppressed,' Maher argued. 'They have a thought in their head that white people did some very bad things and white people did some very bad things, BUT so did everybody else in the world. 'But they don't know that, they see the world through this one prism. And until they do, I don't think you're going to get them off this issue and I don't think the Democratic Party is going to go forward until they make a decision: whose side are you on here? 'Are you on the side of Western civilization and Western values or are you on the side of the terrorists?' He then pointed to Mamdani as an example of how extreme the party's fringe has become. 'There's a lot of opposition [to Mamdani] because we've never had someone this radical,' Maher said. 'Some of the things he says, you know he quotes Marxists, "each according to their need." I mean, that's straight up communism.' Maher was backed in his argument by his guest, Secret City author and columnist James Kirchick, who accused Democratic leaders of showing 'cowardice and spinelessness' by failing to denounce Mamdani. He likened their silence to how Republicans failed to stop Donald Trump's rise.