Talk:David Souter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Flag of New Hampshire

This article is part of Project New Hampshire; an effort to create, expand, and improve New Hampshire-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-priority on the priority scale.


Contents

[edit] "Personal" section completely inadequate

OK, is this guy a closet homosexual or what? With so little information about his personal life, this page doesn't qualify as a biography in any sense of the word. Mr. Souter is either a very clever closet queen, is having sex with some amazingly quiet woman or is a sexual zero. Every one of these posibilities makes him very suspect. The nine people on the US Supreme Court hold virtually unlimited power. The notion of "checks and balances" just doesn't apply where they are concerned. There are none. This being the case, the American people have every right to know if one of their unelected masters is emotionally unstable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.52.28 (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"very clever closet queen"? People who manage not to get married are emotionally unstable? Someone is wearing their bigotries on their sleeve. Weird. In practice, Supreme Court's power is circumscribed. While I agree it's unfortunate that justices like Scalia and Thomas show so little deference to the democratically-elected legislatures and their enactments, that's not a reason for excessive interest or inquiry into their personal lives.

[edit] Criticism

I've got some extreme reservations about having that Criticism section placed there mentioning that Hotel of Lost Liberties/Logan Clements deal. It would be better to just mention his home being possessed and place a link to the Hotel/Logan Clements article. I see no need to have 3 of the same paragraphs repeated on 3 different articles. A very Brief mention about Souter's residence being in the news and a link would be sufficient. --Selfexiled 11:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Why is even that appropriate? Souter's jurisprudence has been criticized (and praised) on many different grounds; this is a transient matter based on a publicity stunt. To suggest that this is the only noteworthy criticism of Souter's career is simply a display of ignorance. Delete it. Judge Magney 23:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

One recent contributer reintroduced it, claiming some sort of malfeasance by Judge Magney relating to the Kelo decision. I agree with you both and don't think that it should be included. The little publicity stunt is particularly irrelevant, but the reference to the decision is silly also because he didn't write the opinion. Unless someone else does, and pending any objection, I'll go ahead and delete in a few days. Geoff.green 01:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Im not sure if I should add that Justice Souter has a repuatation of being a shy person, or if this is even a criticism.

--

Since the people who want to seize Souter's farm have now gathered enough signatures (25) to put this on the March 2006 ballot, I think it warrants being mentioned in the article. Does anyone agree? --JamesB3 16:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It led a national news broadcast I heard last night, and as it gets closer to the referendum it will certainly continue to be reported. Please be bold and add it. Jonathunder 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. While Souter's extreme privacy is of interest, loonies trying to seize his farm really don't center in who he is. If this becomes a thing, and we're still hearing about it in three years, sure, maybe then it will warrant inclusion. Now, however, it is nothing more than wackos trying to influence the Court. I don't think we should show them respect by including them in the article anymore than sport television should show loonies who run out onto the field. Vincent Vecera 14:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree as well. We can always add if the referendum passes (in which case we should, as it is a major part of Souter's career and life no doubt). But as far as most of us should be concerned, this is a slight bit of trivia that has no place in a reference. Selfexiled 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the Souter-defenders above miss the larger point of the movement to attempted seizure Souter’s house. Odd I should have to point this out to people who refer to their own alleged high intelligence, but Souter and the other liberal justices took away other peoples houses. Souter did so in his official capacity and in clear unmistakable VIOLATION of the plain meaning of the United States Constitution. He and the other justices reinvented the word "public use" to mean something other than "public use" as written by the forefathers. And for some to attempt to expunge the record of this misdeed, this clear abuse and overreach of the authority of his office, smacks of revisionism.--69.37.125.45 03:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Revisionism? Nothing of the sort. Kelo was nothing new. Kelo was merely an affirmatives of the status quo. (hint: it's called the "takings" clause, not the "public use" clause. Souter just happens to be one of the judges who believe the Supreme Court should generally follow their own precedents. Which they more or less what they should do, unless we want the assumptions of the legal system being rocked one way or another every five years. The democratically enacted legislature "took away people's houses." This time they didn't just take poor people's houses. I weep, I weep at the inequity of it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.150.47 (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] link re High School is in error

Just wanted to point out that the link to "Concord High School" takes the viewer to a school in North Carolina. In point of fact, David went to Concord High School in Concord, N. H., graduating in 1957 (as did I). This link should either be removed or changed!

I encourage you to be bold and make the change. Welcome to wikipedia. Jonathunder 21:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] developing story...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4639374.stm Ingenious, in my opinion. Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. If it gets off the ground (it's already on the ballot and only a majority vote away from happening) it's worth a mention. --AK7 17:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased Summary

Isn't calling a brilliant, respected jurist like Justice William Brennan an "ideologue" show a bit of political bias? He was a more strident liberal than Souter, to be sure, but was he really (as the OED defines "ideologue") "an adherent of an ideology, esp. one who is uncompromising and dogmatic : a Nazi ideologue." The word choice seems to be very unfair and slanted.

Do you know who Brennan was? 208.111.220.125 (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eminent domain kooks

Some nuts are obessed with blaming Souter, but a majority of Justices agreed that each state can choose to hhave or not have the state power to condemn land to prevent holdouts from extorting the rest of the community by preventing economic development. If the citizens of South Dakota want to hinder development and enact iron clad private property laws, then they outlaw eminent domain. All the High Court said was that the federal courts will not prevent state governments from deciding what constitutes public use. John wesley 13:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the 2006 official court picture Justice Souter took should be posted instead of the old photo on the top of his biography page

Is it public domain? What is the link to it? Jonathunder 21:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont know, but I believe it can easily be found somwhere. I think a updated picture would be better than one that is nearly 15 years old. Just a suggestion. Thanks

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4879294 more official and recent pic, should post

That is an Associated Press photograph. The current photo attached to this article is his official portrait, which is why other sites that rely on public domain photographs of the justices such as Oyez use this old photo as well.--DizFreak talk Contributions 22:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Souter Pronounciation

For some reason, I've always pronounced it "Sewter", but I've heard it pronounced "Sowter" as well. Which is correct? Mattbrundage 14:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

Why is this article entitled David Hackett Souter not David Souter? Surely the latter is the most widely used, as required by WP:NC(CN). And given that David Souter redirects, I can't see evidence of a naming conflict. Unless I hear a good reason, I propose to move it back. -- Lincolnite 00:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That caught my eye as well. Turns out there was an Australian David Henry Souter. I've made that clear at the top of the article. --Ken Gallager 14:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the Offical Biography at the United States Supreme Court site, unlike many justices, he prefers to use his middle name. The other is John Paul Stevens.--DizFreak talk Contributions 22:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend moving it back. According to page views, no one knows his middle name. There are 19215 hits on David Souter,[1] only 3110 on David Hackett Souter.[2] 199.125.109.28 (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Google shows 138,000 hits for David Souter and only 9,290 for David Hackett Souter. 199.125.109.28 (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alma Mater

Someone want to add it? I dont know how —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.105.46 (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-considering 1st paragraph edit?

I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent edit of this article -- not that I'm sure that the data are necessarily "wrong." Rather, I'm persuaded that the strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is an unhelpful approach to this specific subject. I note that articles about other sitting Justices have been similarly "enhanced;" and I also believe those changes are no improvement.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, I would invite anyone to re-visit articles written about the following pairs of jurists.

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

At a minimum, I'm questioning this edit? It deserves to be reconsidered. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)