For those interested in the original appointment of Justice Souter to the Court, I recommend (as I have previously) Jan Craford Greenburg's outstanding book, Supreme Conflict. I blogged on it long ago and identified the Souter nomination as one of the most interesting parts of the book. Here's what I wrote then:
Fourth, her rendition of the Souter nomination reads almost more as a comedy than a tragedy--the process and outcome was so farcical that it would be absurd to think that it would have been anything but random chance that Souter would have turned out to have been a Justice suitable to conservatives, so Greenburg hardly even wastes any ink suggesting that conservatives could have seriously been surprised or disappointed by how Souter has turned out.
I'm not aware of any other work that is as insightful as Greenburg's on Supreme Court nominations. Not to mention that it is a truly fabulous read.
I've also seen strong praise for Greenburg's book from a very politically diverse bunch of people. That's not at all easy to accomplish and the book is on my reading list.
In fairness, Souter's record as a state attorney general was moderately-conservative, and his record as state supreme court justice was moderate -- not the staunch liberal he became on the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the Bush judge-pickers had done their job, they would have known he was a moderate drifting leftward, not a conservative -- but they still probably would not have been able to anticipate just how far to the left he ultimately drifted on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Of course, on economic issues, Souter's successor may be even further to his left, given that Obama is the most liberal president we've ever had, and the fact that the conservative Southern wing of the Democratic Party, which used to control senior seats in the Senate and House, is now basically dead (even so-called Blue Dog Democrats vote with their liberal California and New York colleagues far more often than moderate Midwestern democrats like Alan Dixon (D-IL_ and James Exon (D-Neb.) did a couple decades ago).
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.