Obama, Souter both get what they want

Here's a win-win situation: President Obama gets to name a Supreme Court justice, and Justice David Souter gets to go home to New Hampshire and resume his monastic, rural life. Both the president and the unhappy justice win. Whether the country as a whole and jurisprudence wins depends upon whom the president selects to replace Souter.

To say that Souter has been a disappointment to conservative Republicans almost since the day President George H.W. Bush appointed him is an understatement. Republicans wanted a reliable conservative who would shift the dynamics of the court away from the active liberalism embodied by Justice William Brennan, whom Souter replaced. But Souter's conservatism seemed to be lodged in his distaste for change, whether it was the change from his rural New Hampshire lifestyle to urban Washington or change in the form of a shift in precedent. Souter's dominant judicial philosophy seemed to be stare decisis, the principle that once a court establishes a ruling it should stand and guide future decisions. Souter would have voted to uphold Plessy v. Ferguson ("separate but equal" accommodations) had he been given the opportunity. It has also been said that he preferred the 19th century to the 21st.

Obama's replacement of Souter is unlikely to change the court's dynamics. The new justice, who will be approved by an overwhelmingly Democratic Senate, will be reliably liberal, unless Obama misjudges his nominee as badly as GHW Bush misjudged Souter. This nomination is unlikely to alter the course of the court. As important as Supreme Court nominations are (justices serve, on average, 26 years, but presidents serve no more than eight), this one looks less than seismic.