Former Supreme Court justice David Souter has died
npr.org
npr.org
"You're on the Supreme Court, right?" Souter nodded. "You're Stephen Breyer, right?"
Souter didn't want to embarrass the fellow in front of his wife, so he said yes, he was Breyer. They chatted for a little while, and the fellow asked, "Justice Breyer, what's the best thing about being on the Supreme Court?"
After a pause, the justice answered, "I'd have to say it was the privilege of serving with David Souter."
At a science fiction convention, a woman said to me, "Dr. Asimov, I have just finished your book Childhood's End. I liked it, but I didn't think it was as good as your other books."
Maintaining a straight and solemn face (with an enormous effort), I said, "Yes, ma'am. I was frightfully disappointed in that book, which I thought was quite inferior. I therefore insisted it appear under the pseudonym of Arthur C. Clarke, Jr."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov
> The story of how Queen Elizabeth handled an encounter with an American hiker who did not recognise her, recounted by a former bodyguard who was with her that day
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/what-queen-elizabeth-said-w...
I was a teenager at the time, it was the 90s, and I don't think I took much of anything too seriously, but I remember being kind of in awe of him. He talked about the importance of civic education which to this day that remains one of my core beliefs as an American.
A lot has changed for the worse since then, and it feels like we've only gotten further from the idea that the purpose of education is, more than anything else, to teach us to be better citizens and participants in our democracy.
He came across as the most even-keeled person in the world.
I asked him how he thought he had changed, if at all, throughout his years on the Court. He said, "We never see ourselves as others see us." I'll never forget it.
He'll be missed; sorry to hear that his papers won't be released for 50 years.
Are they subject to Freedom of Information requests?
Edit: I was not aware of this, somehow, lo these many years. Per Google, emphasis mine:
$FOIA grants the public the right to request records from the executive branch of the U.S. Government. However, it specifically excludes the Legislative and Judicial branches, including the Supreme Court.$
Stop making the government a geriatric
Here he is discussing the dangers of the erosion of civic knowledge.
> If we know who is responsible, I have enough faith in the American people to demand performance from those responsible. If we don't know, we will stay away from the polls, we will not demand it, and the day will come when somebody will come forward, and we and the government will, in effect, say 'take the ball and run with it. Do what you have to do.' That is the way democracy dies, and if something is not done to improve the level of civic knowledge, that is what you should worry about at night.
In most countries I lived in, "big problems that have populist support" are completely manufactured bullshit. Crime may actually be down and populists will be screaming a out it, because in politics perception matters more than actual numbers.
Given that "democratic" didn't mean the same thing then it does now (with suffrage limited to a small group of the uber-rich), and that some of the problems he was fixing was "the threat of this army I happen to have" and "this war I actively participated in", I don't think it is wrong. He wasn't in Rome when the Senate awarded him power and the Vestal Virgins drank in his name, which isn't something that would be commanded.
After decades of war and strife and food shortages, peace under one warlord looked more appealing than having three who would likely eventually be at each other's throats.
But even, then it is definitely not accurate. Augustus gained powers through the numerous conflicts which followed Caesar murder at a time when the Republic was already challenged thanks to legions he more or less inherited (oversimplification) from Caesar. He was given powers by the Senate through what we would call rubber stamping only after his military power was inescapable.
Souter was nominated in 1990. The President's party held the Senate in 2005 when Harriet Miers nomination didn't even make it out of committee.
If you're talking about an actual vote for a nominee, looks like there were only four rejected candidates in the entire 1900's and 2000's so far (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_th...), and only one of those was when the President's party held the Senate. That was in 1930. Things don't seem to have changed much.
If you look at nominations that were withdrawn rather than going to a vote and being rejected, President Trump has had 5 withdrawn so far which is the most of any President in US history.
I see no evidence that the process is becoming more of a rubber-stamp than it was previously. If you've got some, I'd like to see it.
That's the one I remember from the simpsond back then
Homer's random knowledge of Supreme Court Justices mentioned throughout the years never ceases to amaze me.
Episode link: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/epi...
We were warned from the beginning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell...
Not that those are rare.
[EDIT] To make this a little more substantive, on an issue where they extremely plausibly could have decided otherwise, they elected to go for the option that is plainly, guaranteed to be less-just. There is no universe in which anyone with a brain could believe the overwhelming result of this decision wouldn't be to benefit people with power and money at the expense of those without power and money.
Subjective decisions are bad, like we're seeing in other areas. "General benefits" can mean anything if you've got cooperative judges you crammed the courts with.
> Not that those are rare.
Heller comes to mind, even as a 2a supporter.
Banning law-abiding individuals from possessing firearms may or may not be good policy, but it's hard to see how it's constitutional. If people want to change that policy, they'll need to amend the constitution.
1. https://web.archive.org/web/20100531191739/http://www.suprem...
Herein lies the problem: it's just too hard to amend the constitution. Here in Ireland it's just a referendum. Some pass, some don't. It's a living document that changes (slowly) over time.
Heller was a 5/4 decision and a number of lower courts ruled different from the Supreme Court. It's not as clear-cut as you're making it out. The US constitution is vague enough that in many cases you can give several different reasonable interpretations. Endless discussion over what a comma written 250 years ago may or may not mean is quite frankly deeply and profoundly idiotic way of governing a country.