David Souter

Supreme Court Justice David Souter was labeled “The Liberal Republican” (Opinion, July 2). Maybe “liberal” is OK in today’s context, where the Republican Party leadership is in the hands of extreme religious conservatives. But I submit that “mainstream” would be more accurate. Few would call Barry Goldwater liberal, yet he strongly espoused two traditionally Republican precepts Souter would applaud: strict separation of church and state and keeping the government out of a woman’s choices about reproduction.

George W. Bush’s two favorite Supreme Court justices are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, both of whom firmly oppose those two Goldwater principles. A Bush victory in November would lead to a court with one or more new justices of the Scalia-Thomas stamp. Under William Rehnquist’s leadership, then, we’d see a further enshrining of majority rule, wearing down the protections that the Bill of Rights affords minorities of all kinds. Add in Souter’s opposition to the court’s revisionist pushing of states’ rights--a rallying cry of Southern Democrats long before they became Republicans--and one can see that Souter is more properly seen as a traditional Republican.

STANFORD TAYLOR

Pasadena

*

David M. O’Brien recalls that in 1990 “legal analysts” predicted Souter would reinforce the conservative slant the Supreme Court had taken under Presidents Reagan and Bush. Having known Souter at Oxford University in 1961-63, I disagreed with the experts. A lifelong Democrat, I admired Souter’s intellect, wit and fundamental decency. He was and is the sort of Republican of whom Lincoln would be proud--principled but not preachy, solid but not rigid, willing to use federal institutions to uphold individual rights. Rather than “liberal,” I would call him “just.” And isn’t that what the Supreme Court is supposed to be?

GAINES POST JR.

Claremont