I get the impression that a lot of law professors think of Souter as something of an intellectual lightweight (at least relative to themselves). I had both a liberal law prof and a conservative law prof who voiced that kind of opinion in class.

As usual, Prof. Kerr outshines the other commenters and gets to the crux of the matter. What does it say that such integrity is evidently so undervalued?

And could they not find a conservative voice that wasn't a parody of naked ideological thinking? He makes even Guinier's small-mindedness look broad.

I mostly agree with Desiderius, though I see nothing wrong with Guinier's contribution. I hope she doesn't get her wish for a "liberal lion" but her comparison of Brennan and Souter seems correct. Akhil Amar's got some interesting stuff to say, too. Whelan, Lazarus and V. Amar could have been left on the cutting room floor. I assume Desiderius is referring to Whelan when s/he asks whether the Times could have found a conservative voice that wasn't a parody of ideological thinking.

I'm tired of hearing that no opinions Souter has written will be remembered as important or noteworthy.

Souter's dissents in Seminole Tribe and Alden utterly eviscerate the majority opinions in those cases and expose the Court's state sovereign immunity jurisprudence for precisely what it is: so much bullshit.

For a bit of information that could be seen as supportive of the positions of Kerr and Powe, I have found that Souter stood out among the justices for apparent regard for stare decisis, as measured by citations.

How is that a measure of intellectual ability?

I have never cared for Souter's writing style, but it's his own voice (one of the stories I've read the last few days said that when a clerk would give Souter a crisply written draft he'd crack, "ok, time to put some lead in it"). I take it he has a lot more involvement than some in the writing of his opinions. He is also a thoughtful questioner, and evidently a careful and cautious researcher. I have no doubt he's a force behind the scenes, no matter how dull the end product may look.

I want Lani Guinier to replace Souter. The American people need to see her stuff live.

I remember when Souter was nominated and immediately posters went up around D.C. saying: "STOP SOUTER OR WOMEN WILL DIE!!!"

I also remember Souter as hardworking and independent. He gave me one of my favorite personal moments on the Court: after a Clerk's Office error resulted in my brief being circulated late, I was so relieved to see Justice Souter quoting from my brief from the bench.

On the other hand, he was eminently predictable. Just a few weeks ago, at a Supreme Court moot, the talk turned to Souter and the group made an absolutely accurate prediction of the questions Souter would ask during argument (and there were a lot of them).

I would agree with Prof. Kerr's analysis, but I think he glosses over the answer to the question: were his work ethic and personal qualities the sum total of Justice Souter's contribution to the Court? If so, that would be admirable, but not memorable. We hope that Justices will be more than hardworking members of the chorus.

Souter's move to the left over the years did more than just give a reliable vote; it stymied an effort to redefine Supreme Court jurisprudence. Like Dan Quayle, the Souter pick confirmed George H.W. Bush's tin ear for selections. In each case, Quayle instead of Alan Simpson, and Souter instead of Ken Starr, the pick (each made because the rejected choice was insufficiently conservative) was more memorable for not having the intended effect than anything else.

krs,

"I see nothing wrong with Guinier's contribution"

Nor do I - just a Palinesque lack of enough right - or at least interesting - to merit either the Harvard by her name or her inclusion in the panel.

BZ,

Agree on Bush I's lack of the vision thing. Souter's reticence and humility made him a useful corrective to Warren Court overreaches, but Roberts and Alito promise to be not only more conservative, but also more interesting justices. I'm hopeful re: Kagan as well. We don't need Warrenesque rampages over the democratic process, but we do need the court to tackle the big questions in more bold and novel ways than Souter often managed.