As we move past President Obamas 100th day of office it looks like the next thing on the horizon likely to cause a ruckus is going to be who Obama decides to nominate as his Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Souter. Now the majority of conservatives feel that while Souter was appointed by Bush the first he in the end was more of a liberal then a conservative and is often thought of as a mistake when people look at Bush's appointments.
I would argue that while the world changed around him. That as the popular definition of liberal and conservative shifted over the years since he was appointed. Justice Souter continued to be consistent in the way he voted and the way that he looked at the law. To me this doesn't highlight a problem with Justice Souter but it highlights a problem with the Supreme Court in general.
For a country that claims to be a democracy I think it is a travesty that the highest court in the land is made up of life time presidential appointed positions. Now while theoretically this is supposed to protect them from the pressures of running for office and to stop them from looking for money or being at risk of undue influence. When in reality due to the nature of the position the Justice is under the influence of whatever President appointed them.
This is the problem with the Supreme Court it should not be made up of lifetime appointees who are then expected to rule based upon a political position as opposed to how the law reads. That is what the ultimate litmus test should be not the political administration that appointed said Justice but what the law reads that they are ruling on.
With this as the criteria it makes it a little easier to look at the Justices and they way that they rule and under these conditions I think Justice Souter did the job he was hired to do. I just hope President Obama picks a Justice that will respect the law in the same way and not one who they must rule based on the political position of the office that appointed them.
