TruPolitics

This is a new feature on TruPolitics.net. Political Shapshots offer a brief, concise summary of a current issue. Each Snapshot has a representation of the left and right perspective, as well as the TruPolitics take on the issue.

Last week, Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced he would be retiring from the Supreme Court. The departure of Justice Souter, whose tenure began with his appointment in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush, leaves open a key seat for President Obama to fill.

Right:Most Republicans describe Justice Souter as the conservative jurist who wasn’t, a liberal judge in conservative’s clothing. Souter was the deciding liberal vote to uphold Roe v. Wade in 1992, registered a dissenting opinion in favor of Al Gore in the Bush v. Gore Florida ballot case, and has generally been seen by Republicans as an overly liberal and progressive judge. Because Souter himself is seen as liberal, the appointment of his replacement will not tip the current judicial balance. Republicans, nonetheless, will fight vehemently against any liberal nominee by the Obama Administration. This serves two purposes: 1.Ideloglical—to call to light issues with judicial activism and the need for conservative justices; 2. Political—to stall the general Democrat agenda by tying up debate and legislation with the approval and vetting process.

Left: Most liberals laud Justice Souter as a man who broke from the party which appointed him and shunned partisan politics in favor of proper judicial practice. They praise his progressive record, and view him as a savior of sorts that kept the Supreme Court from falling into conservative control. The appointment of a justice is a key legacy for any president, and Obama has already made it clear he favors a progressive over a conservative. Democrats know they are in for a battle, and have expressed a desire to keep the appointment and nomination process to a minimum so as to focus on their broader agenda.

TruPolitics: While Justice Souter’s tenure was disappointing along many conservative fronts, he should be admired for focusing on the law rather than politics. He was not a judicial activist, nor was he decidedly partisan. He did, however, view the Constitution as progressive, or malleable with time. Though he was more moderate than truly liberal, his overarching Constitutional philosophy toed the line of progressive jurisprudence, a dangerous line that many of his constituents have crossed. Going forward, it is important that President Obama look for a justice who believes in strict interpretation of the Constitution, and who looks to uphold, rather than change, legal precedent. His early considerations, like Judge Sonia Sotomayor and Yale Law Dean Harold Koh, represent a sharply liberal ideology that speaks of judicial activism. The law was never meant to make policy; that is the job of Congress, and such activism threatens the balance so carefully established by our founders. The law was meant to reaffirm Constitutional values as to the Framers’ intent, not the intent of activists.

For an excellent take on the Supreme Court and the Constitution, I highly recommend Whither Goes the Constitution from The Daily Switch.