ILNews

Reports: Justice to retire; speculation begins

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Reports broke late Thursday that a Supreme Court of the United States justice plans to retire from the bench but which justice may surprise some. Justice David Hackett Souter has decided to leave the bench following the current SCOTUS term, according to national news outlets. His retirement was confirmed this afternoon in a SCOTUS press release.

Valparaiso University School of Law professor Ivan Bodensteiner said he wasn't surprised by the reports Justice Souter may be the first to leave the nation's highest court during President Barack Obama's administration. While many expected Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who recently underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer, or Justice John Paul Stevens, who is 89, to leave the bench first, Bodensteiner said there have been stories for sometime that Justice Souter doesn't like Washington, D.C., and was ready to return to New Hampshire.

Justice Souter sat on the Superior and Supreme Courts of New Hampshire prior to being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. Following his appointment to the Supreme Court, some began to view Justice Souter as a disappointment because he aligned more with the "liberals" of the court, said Bodensteiner.

The assumption was he would be a reliable conservative, although no one knew much about him when he took the bench, said Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington professor Charles Geyh. He established himself as a moderating influence on the court, and now appears more liberal than moderate because of the court's progressive shift to the right during the last generation. Geyh said he was surprised to learn of Justice Souter's retirement but thinks his leaving could set a good precedent for the court.

"If the reason he is retiring is because he's reached reasonable retirement age and thinks it's a good idea to leave when you reach a certain age, then it could set a good precedent," he said.

Sometimes justices may retain their spot on the bench longer than they should, and it's good to get new blood on the court. Geyh finds it interesting Justice Souter may view his time on the bench like many other Americans view their jobs and think when they reach a certain age, it's simply time to retire.

Both Bodensteiner and Geyh don't think Justice Souter's replacement will shift the ideological power of the court because President Obama will most likely pick someone who is also considered a liberal. However, Bodensteiner cautioned that we can't predict how a future justice may vote was on the bench, as proven by Justice Souter's voting record. Previous news reports and blogs have mentioned several potential candidates for vacant U.S. Supreme Court spots, including 7th Circuit Court of Appeal Judge Diane P. Wood.

Neither professor could offer specific names as possible replacements for the justice, but Geyh said he wouldn't be surprised if a woman is selected. Whoever Obama selects, Geyh expects the Republicans will try to say the candidate is a liberal and challenge the nominee.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT