Souter Shoots Back

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Linda Greenhouse, former Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times, lecturer at Yale Law School, and author of Before Roe v. Wade: Voices That Shaped the Abortion Debate Before The Supreme Court's Ruling, discusses David Souter's recent graduation address at Harvard Law School.


Linda Greenhouse

Comments [9]

Karl from Birmingham, AL

Richard...are you saying the 14th Amendment is insufficient in scope because it didn't address specifically the means of commercially provided conveyance newly liberated negroes ought be allowed to use (Justice Souter mentions "separate but equal" cars on a train)? It seems so. If that's the case, are you also saying that these matters should have been contemplated by the citizenry, voted on separately in the individual legislatures, and the resultant sentiment codified as law in a proximate amendment? Just curious...

Jun. 09 2010 01:15 AM

To Matt from UWS , Peter from Fairfield CT.,Joe from Bridgewater NJ
Listening to Greenhouse praise Justice Souter's
discussion of the need to consider "facts" in the context of current thinking , I was amazed at the ignorance she displayed. The purpose of a Constiutional Ammendment is just that. If the country believes the circumstances have changed with regard to certain facts, a Constitutional Amendment may be appropriate. It is not up to a Justice to Amend the Constitution!

Jun. 08 2010 06:27 PM
S Block from NYC

there is a theorem in computer science that proves that in any system you will always have a single point of failure. i.e. if you have an electric generator, you can install several backup generators so that the single generator is not a single point of failure... but you would still need a judge to decide which generator was still working, so then the judge is the single point of failure.

same with the supreme court.

souter didn't say anything else, though he seemed to be sort of catty, thus indicating that he might be more likely to fail as a judge.

Jun. 08 2010 10:59 AM
Joe from Bridgewater, NJ

Whenever I hear about "original intent" I wonder whose original intent is meant: Jefferson's or Adams's? Does anyone actually believe that there was unanimous agreement on the meaning of the Constitution in 1790?

Jun. 08 2010 10:58 AM
PETER from fairfield ct

Im greatful the fundamentalism of the conservative court is under serious fire. To impose original interpretation of the constitution on a modern society is parallel to imposing the koran or the bible on a modern people, and what a mess that would be!

Jun. 08 2010 10:57 AM
Lisa from nj

How are strict constructionists stacking up these days and what is Bam Bam's plan to restructure that?

Jun. 08 2010 10:56 AM
Jim Cooper from Paramus NJ

Listening to the excerpt of Souter, I could think only of the analogy with Civil Union concepts of "separate but equal" ....

Jun. 08 2010 10:55 AM
Derek from 42nd & Lex

Souter was a disaster, especially the Kelo decision

Jun. 08 2010 10:55 AM
Matt from UWS

So how do strict constructionists defend Plessy and/or Brown?
What do Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, et al?

Jun. 08 2010 10:54 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.