THE JURISPRUDENTIAL EVOLUTION OF JUSTICE DAVID SOUTER

Abstract

During his first five years on the Supreme Court, Justice David Souter has not followed a straight ideological path and he has turned out to be more liberal than officials in the Bush administration predicted. This article describes Souter's jurisprudence in several important areas of constitutional law and identifies some of the factors that have influenced his jurisprudential evolution. During his freshman term, Justice Souter struggled to adjust to the workload of the Court and did little to establish a distinct judicial philosophy. By his second term, he became acclimated to the decision making process and began articulating a pragmatic approach to constitutional interpretation that has set him apart from the legal formalists on the Court. Additionally, Souter has responded to new appointees by moving away from the conservative bloc and consistently voting with Democratic appointees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer who, together with Justice John Paul Stevens, are said to constitute the Court's liberal bloc.