Souter's Out, So Who's In?

David Souter, the Bush I-appointed and admittedly liberal Supreme Court Justice, is stepping down. According to most reports, he just doesn't like Washington anymore, and wants to go back to driving his Subaru while wearing socks and sandals in New Hampshire. Or Vermont. Or Maine? It's all the same really.

I got to meet Justice Souter in March of 2003 while spending time in Washington. I wish I could say it was riveting, something I remember fondly and look forward to telling people about but quite frankly, I'd give anything to have that hour and a half of my life back, as it was the single most boring thing I've ever endured.

And I'm not talking about that sort of boring where you can look at the wall, or daydream, or occupy yourself with some other mental venture. This was that inescapable, painful type of boring that made you want to gnaw off your own leg like a captured bear. It nearly ruined the trip completely, as I was weary that any human contact could possibly be as boring as that man just was, and was in silent seclusion for the rest of the day.

But I digress.

The big story now is what Obama is going to do with this prized gem: A vacant supreme court seat. Appointed by the president, this is often seen — by supporters and opponents alike — as the most tangible legacy any President can leave behind.

The average for a President is just under two justices per administration, so this could be part one of an Obama saga. Here's what to expect:

Minutia vetting: Republicans are going to try and vet whoever this candidate might be to millions of tiny shreds. To, uh, no avail, by the way, as they are mightily outnumbered.

A lot of speculation about the political implications: Well, duh. But people are going to be using this selection, I think, as a barometer of Obama's political intentions. B-Rock has done very well for himself by pushing a liberal agenda while extending a hand to conservatives to come along for the ride (perhaps a mere gesture, knowing full-well that they won't accept and he doesn't need them, but it's still playing nice).

No net gain; no net loss: Souter was appointed by G.H.W. Bush, a Republican, and — gasp! — turned out to be a rather liberal judge. I'm certain it's not what Bush or the GOP had in mind while selecting him (making him especially loathsome to Republicans). Obama isn't going to pick a conservative justice, although he could take a centrist-play-nice approach. That will leave the American people with...exactly what they had before.

The only up-swing is for Republicans, in that there's another gotcha move a la G.H.W. Bush by the justice being a conservative voice rather than the liberally-preferred one that will be selected by the Democrat Obama. I doubt this will be the case, however; There's somewhat of a loyalty that's associated with a justice and the president who appointed him. And Obama is mighty popular.

So let the prejudiced vetting and mindless speculating begin. If Obama's selection is anything like the circus that was his cabinet nominations, we're in for a fun ride here at UFW.

UPDATE: Conservatives are already on the move. Well that took all of about three hours.