Talk:David Souter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
This article is part of Project New Hampshire; an effort to create, expand, and improve New Hampshire-related articles to a feature-quality standard. |
Contents |
[edit] Criticism
I've got some extreme reservations about having that Criticism section placed there mentioning that Hotel of Lost Liberties/Logan Clements deal. It would be better to just mention his home being possessed and place a link to the Hotel/Logan Clements article. I see no need to have 3 of the same paragraphs repeated on 3 different articles. A very Brief mention about Souter's residence being in the news and a link would be sufficient. --Selfexiled 11:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Why is even that appropriate? Souter's jurisprudence has been criticized (and praised) on many different grounds; this is a transient matter based on a publicity stunt. To suggest that this is the only noteworthy criticism of Souter's career is simply a display of ignorance. Delete it. Judge Magney 23:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
One recent contributer reintroduced it, claiming some sort of malfeasance by Judge Magney relating to the Kelo decision. I agree with you both and don't think that it should be included. The little publicity stunt is particularly irrelevant, but the reference to the decision is silly also because he didn't write the opinion. Unless someone else does, and pending any objection, I'll go ahead and delete in a few days. Geoff.green 01:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Im not sure if I should add that Justice Souter has a repuatation of being a shy person, or if this is even a criticism.
--
Since the people who want to seize Souter's farm have now gathered enough signatures (25) to put this on the March 2006 ballot, I think it warrants being mentioned in the article. Does anyone agree? --JamesB3 16:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- It led a national news broadcast I heard last night, and as it gets closer to the referendum it will certainly continue to be reported. Please be bold and add it. Jonathunder 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I disagree. While Souter's extreme privacy is of interest, loonies trying to seize his farm really don't center in who he is. If this becomes a thing, and we're still hearing about it in three years, sure, maybe then it will warrant inclusion. Now, however, it is nothing more than wackos trying to influence the Court. I don't think we should show them respect by including them in the article anymore than sport television should show loonies who run out onto the field. Vincent Vecera 14:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I disagree as well. We can always add if the referendum passes (in which case we should, as it is a major part of Souter's career and life no doubt). But as far as most of us should be concerned, this is a slight bit of trivia that has no place in a reference. Selfexiled 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the Souter-defenders above miss the larger point of the movement to attempted seizure Souter’s house. Odd I should have to point this out to people who refer to their own alleged high intelligence, but Souter and the other liberal justices took away other peoples houses. Souter did so in his official capacity and in clear unmistakable VIOLATION of the plain meaning of the United States Constitution. He and the other justices reinvented the word "public use" to mean something other than "public use" as written by the forefathers. And for some to attempt to expunge the record of this misdeed, this clear abuse and overreach of the authority of his office, smacks of revisionism.--69.37.125.45 03:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] link re High School is in error
Just wanted to point out that the link to "Concord High School" takes the viewer to a school in North Carolina. In point of fact, David went to Concord High School in Concord, N. H., graduating in 1957 (as did I). This link should either be removed or changed!
- I encourage you to be bold and make the change. Welcome to wikipedia. Jonathunder 21:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] developing story...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4639374.stm Ingenious, in my opinion. Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. If it gets off the ground (it's already on the ballot and only a majority vote away from happening) it's worth a mention. --AK7 17:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Biased Summary
Isn't calling a brilliant, respected jurist like Justice William Brennan an "ideologue" show a bit of political bias? He was a more strident liberal than Souter, to be sure, but was he really (as the OED defines "ideologue") "an adherent of an ideology, esp. one who is uncompromising and dogmatic : a Nazi ideologue." The word choice seems to be very unfair and slanted.
[edit] Eminent domain kooks
Some nuts are obessed with blaming Souter, but a majority of Justices agreed that each state can choose to hhave or not have the state power to condemn land to prevent holdouts from extorting the rest of the community by preventing economic development. If the citizens of South Dakota want to hinder development and enact iron clad private property laws, then they outlaw eminent domain. All the High Court said was that the federal courts will not prevent state governments from deciding what constitutes public use. John wesley 13:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the 2006 official court picture Justice Souter took should be posted instead of the old photo on the top of his biography page
- Is it public domain? What is the link to it? Jonathunder 21:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I dont know, but I believe it can easily be found somwhere. I think a updated picture would be better than one that is nearly 15 years old. Just a suggestion. Thanks
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4879294 more official and recent pic, should post
[edit] Souter Pronounciation
For some reason, I've always pronounced it "Sewter", but I've heard it pronounced "Sowter" as well. Which is correct? Mattbrundage 14:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sewter.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 06:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
