Justice David Souter is planning to retire after nearly two decades on the Supreme Court, but his departure is unlikely to change its conservative-liberal split.
President Barack Obama’s first pick for the high court is likely to be a liberal-leaning nominee, much like Souter.
The White House has been told that Souter will retire in June, when the court finishes its work for the summer, a source familiar with his plans said Thursday night. The retirement is likely to take effect only once a successor is confirmed.
The source spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for Souter.
This will not change the Court. It is hard to imagine anyone more liberal than Souter after he was appointed. The next two to retire are also likely to be from the liberal wing.
Let no one say that Justice Souter’s resignation will not affect the Court…it will leave the Court without a single Episcopalian (Thomas converted to Romanism about ten years ago, after he married his current wife. Before that, he had attended Truro, I believe). Romans now predominate on the Court, with five members, including the Chief–Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas).
My suspicion is that this is the first time in US history that there have been absolutely no Episcopalians on the Court. I hope that the President is sensitive to this issue in making his appointment (vbg).
Well, considering the rumors flowing that Obama is looking for an hispanic woman to replace Souter, we might end up with another RC (although in name only, if, as Obama has said, he will be sure to select someone who supports abortion).
#2, that’s a really interesting observation. I went to wikipedia to see if this could have happened before.
It’s clear that there has been an Episcopalian on the court since 1955 (Souter, O’Connor, Stewart, Harlan). If you look at the 1954 Warren Court that decided Brown vs Topeka, however, none is explicitly listed as such. However, many have unlisted religions. Probably some of them were at least baptized in ECUSA.
But it’s interesting that many simply have no religion listed at all. I suppose some sort of Protestantism was just assumed. But it’s curious that nobody has tried to pin down an exact church membership for all these men.
#4 – Sidney – I think you are right about the gap. As I recall, CJ Warren is listed as “Protestant” – one biography indicates he attended a Baptist Church while living in Oakland. See _Chief Justice_ by Ed Cray at 62. (1997).
Here is the list of Justices and their religion as published on the Adherents website:
http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html
Perhaps Mr. Obama will name Stephen L. Carter of Yale, and an Episcopalian, to the Court?
http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/authors/carter/bio.html
I’d take issue with No. 1.
If you think Souter is liberal, you should read some of the opinions by Justices Warren, Brennan, particularly William O. Douglas, or even for that matter, the later stuff by Justice Blackmun, who got more liberal the longer he stayed on the court.
In terms of some of the courts in the in the 20th century, even the more liberal members of this current Supreme Court are more moderate, believe it or not.
#4, you have me intrigued about this. I may have to look a little deeper. In the meantime, if we can’t claim any Justices who were on the Court for the Brown case, can we at least get partial credit for Thurgood Marshall, who argued that case for the Inc. Fund?
The Supreme Court without an Episcopalian on the bench! Heaven forefend – it can’t be so!
Back to the reality of hope. Would be an answer to prayer for Obama to find himself as surprised and disappointed in his selection as Bush was in Souter. But it really isn’t very likely Obama will select a [i]tabula rasa[/i], as Souter was thought to be, who turns out to be a closet originalist. One can only hope for that kind of change.
It’s not for me to tell the President that he needs to replace the Episcopal Justice Souter with another Episcopalian, but let’s look at the lessons of history:
David Souter–1990 to 2009 (proj.)
Sandra Day O’Connor–1981-2006
Byron White–1962 to 1993
John Marshall Harlan–1955 to 1971
(Marshall replaced Jackson–Mr. President, are you listening?)
Robert Houghton Jackson–1941 to 1954
Owen Josephus Roberts (1st lay president of the House of Deputies)–1930-1945
George Sutherland–1922 to 1938
GAP OF EIGHT YEARS–WORLD ENGAGED IN SAVAGE WARFARE, “PALMER RAIDS” VIOLATE DOMESTIC POLITICAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS–WORST OF ALL, VOLSTEAD ACT PASSED–NEED I SAY MORE?
Horace Lurton–1910-1914
Melville Fuller-1888-1910
(Fuller replaced Waite–there’s a tradition here, Mr. President)
Morrison Waite–1874-1888
(Waite replaced Chase)
Salmon Chase–1864 to 1873
Stephen Field–1863-1897
CIVIL WAR BREAKS OUT, RESULTING IN THE DEATHS OF 600,000 AMERICANS, INCALCULABLE SUFFERING AND DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY–“THESE HALLOWED DEAD”
John Archibald Campbell–1853-1861
Peter Vivian Daniel–1842-1860
(Daniel–you guessed it–replaced Barber)
Philip P. Barber–1836-1841
Henry Baldwin–1830-1844
John Marshall–1801-1835
Bushrod Washington (George’s nephew)–1799-1829
James Iredell-1790-1799
John Jay–1789 (charter justice)-1795
*****************
There you have it–in the 220 years since the current federal Constitution went into effect, there has been at least one Episcopal Justice on the US Supreme Court for all but ten of those years. And those ten years were full of tragedy, sorrow and bloodshed. Coincidence?–maybe, but do you want to risk it?
It’s interesting that conservative presidents have appointed justices who appeared conservative until they took their place on the court, and then became very liberal. But has there ever been an appointment by a liberal president who appeared liberal and then turned into a more conservative justice upon taking his/her place?
Given the current right tilt to the Supreme Court … surely Soutor will be replaced — as he should — by someone at least slightly left of center. And if that person were to be RC … I wonder if that fact will be brought into play … or if it should? After all … we don’t have a religious test for office … or at least our Consititution forbids it. Then again … religion played heavily in the two previous appointments.
Given the number of Roman Catholics sitting on the Supreme Court, I sometimes find myself wondering how said court might rule in cases where Church hierarchy — say those involving ECUSA — comes into play. The five RCs would certainly have an understanding of a hierarchial Church.
Isn’t Breyer’s daughter an Episcopal priest?