9-13-90 . . . The Senate Judiciary Committee has begun its hearings on the nomination of David Souter to the [United States] Supreme Court. Having done enough work to assuage my guilt at not riding, I spent several hours this evening watching the hearings on C-SPAN, the public-affairs network. What fun! The hearings would probably have bored most people to death, but to me they were fascinating. Question after question probed Souter’s views on judicial review, democracy, representative government, federalism, and statutory and constitutional interpretation, not to mention such specific issues as privacy, civil rights, the relation of church and state, and criminal justice. My impression is that Souter is a nonideological conservative in the mold of William Rehnquist [1924-2005]. Unlike Antonin Scalia, he has no agenda to impose on the nation and appears to feel bound by Supreme Court precedent. He believes that the role of the court is to give meaning to the Constitution’s terms; it is not, as he puts it, to “legislate”. But Souter admits that the Constitution is filled with “majestic generalities” (his phrase) that require interpretation. Today’s questioning was for the most part civil. A couple of senators probed Souter’s views on the right to privacy, but he stopped short of discussing Roe v. Wade. Unless something shocking is discovered or said in the next few days, Souter will be confirmed and take a seat on the Supreme Court. [Souter was confirmed. He recently retired.] 9-13-90 . . . The Senate Judiciary Committee has begun its hearings on the nomination of David Souter to the [United States] Supreme Court. Having done enough work to assuage my guilt at not riding, I spent several hours this evening watching the hearings on C-SPAN, the public-affairs network. What fun! The hearings would probably have bored most people to death, but to me they were fascinating. Question after question probed Souter’s views on judicial review, democracy, representative government, federalism, and statutory and constitutional interpretation, not to mention such specific issues as privacy, civil rights, the relation of church and state, and criminal justice. My impression is that Souter is a nonideological conservative in the mold of William Rehnquist [1924-2005]. Unlike Antonin Scalia, he has no agenda to impose on the nation and appears to feel bound by Supreme Court precedent. He believes that the role of the court is to give meaning to the Constitution’s terms; it is not, as he puts it, to “legislate”. But Souter admits that the Constitution is filled with “majestic generalities” (his phrase) that require interpretation. Today’s questioning was for the most part civil. A couple of senators probed Souter’s views on the right to privacy, but he stopped short of discussing Roe v. Wade. Unless something shocking is discovered or said in the next few days, Souter will be confirmed and take a seat on the Supreme Court. [Souter was confirmed. He recently retired.]Twenty Years Ago
–––––––
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 