On Souter’s Resignation: A Look Back to His Nomination

The New York Times re-publishes an opinion piece from 1990 arguing against David Souter’s nomination to the Supreme Court. An interesting insight into the process of adding a new member to the nation’s highest court, especially in light of nominees’ typical refusal to discuss how they might rule in any particular case. The worry at the time of Souter’s nomination was that he would not support a woman’s right to choose. The irony, of course, is that he became a reliable protector of that right as the court veered hard to the right over the course of his time on it. An excerpt expressing the concern at the Souter nomination:

Judge Souter has had his day in the court of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The question now is whether the committee and the full Senate will fulfill their constitutional responsibility. Any appointee to the Supreme Court must have a demonstrated commitment to the law’s most basic guarantees of individual rights and equality, for all women and men.

The United States Constitution is sustained by a shining principle: equality before the law. There is only one just course of action for the Senate: Judge Souter’s confirmation must be denied.