Jeffrey Toobin's new tell-all on the Supreme Court has some interesting information about this traditional conservative. Apparently Souter breaks down every so often and cries about the ruling that went against him in Bush v. Gore. Funny, I do exactly the same thing myself.

David Souter is exactly what conservatives are desperately afraid of in Harriet Miers, a stealth candidate. After his father somberly and sincerely assured HIS base that Souter was an appropriate "conservative" jurist, with a discernable and reliable reputation for "conservative" jurisprudence, how can anyone blame conservatives for being upset with Miers' nomination? Souter leads the liberal contingent on the Supreme Court (Ginsburg is more liberal but couldn't lead a kazoo band) and is reliably consistent in opposing nearly every conservative principle. Souter is at odds with Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and logic in nearly every decision.

He is a plodder dug up by the elder John Sunumu from the backwoods of New Hampshire. He was supposed to be a strict constructionist and has instead joined the leftos. He is considered a Benedict Arnold by some--a pleasant suprise by others.

There is no current Supreme Court Justice that I disdain more than Souter. He is perhaps one of the biggest mistakes, if not the biggest, made by the first President Bush. As the Benedict Arnold of the legal world that he is, Souter has consistently ignored his duty to interpret the consitution and chosen to legislate from his bench so that his leftest agenda might be forced down the throats of a country that clearly disagrees with his extremist views. Him being a liberal is not what I hate about him- it is his absolute betrayal of a philosophy he pretended to endorse so he could get to where he is today. A disgrace to the American judicial system indeed.

Fairness and common sense!!! I keep hearing this. Interpret the constitution. Do not find liberties in there!

Why do two people on Souter's page insist that Reagan appointed Souter? Uh... it was George HW Bush. Souter is a classic example of a justice who clasps his hands together and pines over the decision of whether or not people have a Constitutional right to something. This isn't impartial, or using common sense. It's arbitrary, and not a very consistent way to interpret the Constitution.

Clearly a deep thinker: a man who represents the archetypes of impartiality, wisdom, and justice far better than most.

The most intelligent man on the court, and appointed by Reagan no less! That's too funny.

Despite being nominated by a conservative-republican president (Ronald Reagan), he has been able to stray from party lines and has voted consistently for individual liberties. His private persona is also admired although many can see it as "aloofness".

Mr. Soulter is one of the few judges currently on the Supreme Court that has earned my respect as a pragmatist and centrist who judges based on fairness and common sense. Despite being appointed by President George Bush, a Republican, Mr. Soulter, unlike Clarence Thomas, has refused to allow party politics to influence his decisions. In one of his first major decisions, he ruled that several state regulations on abortions be upheld, but that Roe v. Wade not be overturned by the high court. Recently, his support of the elimination of the Texas Sodomy Ban proves that he is a free thinker. Mr. Soulter is possibly one of the few hopes that there are still people in the legal system who judge based on fairness, common sense, with respect to the law and without disrespect to precedent.

He's a true believer. He won't knuckle under to the right-wingers and he won't sway over to the liberals. He's his own man who believes the law is the law is the law. No agendas. Just good common sense. Justice Souter is the best Supreme Court appointee in the last quarter of the 20th century.