Today in Supreme Court History: October 3, 1990

10/3/1990: Justice David Souter takes the oath.

Justice David Souter

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Clark v. Hancock, 94 U.S. 493 (decided October 3, 1876): Court can dismiss a non-jurisdictional case without having to wait for the return date (Waite points out that petitioner admitted there was no federal issue and relied on prior practice where one had to wait for the return date -- what was the point? was there oral argument on cert petitions in those days? what did petitioner’s attorney want? he knew he would get a chilly reception -- maybe to admire the curtains?)

In re Disbarment of Kristan Peters-Hamlin, 137 S.Ct. 287 (decided October 3, 2016): she had altered deposition transcripts, and copied them for use in another case in violation of confidentiality order; later appeared on CNN as a “former federal prosecutor” opining on the Mueller investigation

[F.D. Wolf]

Certiorari only dates from the Judiciary Act of 1891. Before that, appeals to the Supreme Court were heard as a matter of right. What the appellant's attorney no doubt wanted was to delay final judgment by a year, which was the return date in this case. A lot can happen in a year.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks. Will make the correction.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The opinion notes:

"The final judgment in this case was rendered Oct. 3, 1876, and the writ of error issued Nov. 16, returnable to the October Term, 1877."

But when was this case decided?

"CLARK v. HANCOCK is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 19, 1877."

https://ballotpedia.org/CLARK_v._HANCOCK_(1877)

See also: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89497/clark-v-hancock/

[Frank Drackman]

and a month later GHWB signed the bill that raised taxes after blathering for the previous 3 years "Read my Lips" (what a stuck up Prick, I still remember him answering questions from reporters about his change in policy with "Watch my Hips!" as he ran off in a pair of those ridiculous super short running shorts) Jimmuh Cartuh and "W" were big runners also, maybe it's a good thing to have a POTUS who doesn't run.

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Souter has been skillful in providing (often brief) comments honoring colleagues.

When Breyer resigned:

“Steve Breyer has been a superlative justice, whose work has shown his high intelligence and sound common sense. His friendship has enhanced my life.”

When Ginsburg died:

“Ruth Ginsburg was one of the members of the Court who achieved greatness before she became a great justice. I loved her to pieces.”

When Stevens — who said Souter was the one he relied on most to tell him when it was time to go — died:

“He was the soul of principle and an irreplaceable friend.”

==

Justice Souter was a good justice and is a good human being [things that often overlap] who also knew when to step off the scene.

After leaving the Court, he publicly was concerned with civics education. Souter continued to serve on the lower courts. He stopped doing so a few years back.

Souter's Harvard speech is excellent:

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/05/text-of-justice-david-souters-speech/

[Frank Drackman]

But he voted that the Government could take your home, not for a highway, not for a dam, but to give to a private company, to build a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swingin’ hot spot. Then when it was HIS home that was the target, wasn’t so happy (remember the whole “Lost Liberty Hotel” proposal?) His Yankee dour ass couldn’t have gotten in a Big Yellow Taxi fast enough for me.

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

To quote Kelo v. City of New London:

In 2000, the city of New London approved a development plan that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was “projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas.” 268 Conn. 1, 5, 843 A. 2d 500, 507 (2004).

One can "not be happy" about that if it affects them.

Conservatives repeatedly inform us that being "happy" and accepting what the law is ... well, not the same thing.

[apedad]

I like how someone tried to take over Justice Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse after Kelo and turn it into a hotel.

"The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare," Logan Darrow Clements of California wrote in a letter faxed to town officials in Weare on Tuesday.

Souter, a longtime Weare resident, joined in the 5-4 (Kelo) court decision allowing governments to seize private property from one owner and turn it over to another if doing so would benefit a community.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna8406056

[Dan Schiavetta]

Joe:

I agree. A good man and a good Justice.

[Frank Drackman]

Clarence "Frogman" Thomas? I agree

[Dr. Ed 2]

I forgot that he was a REPUBLICAN appointee....