Bush’s biggest blunder

During his four years as president, George H.W. Bush made many mistakes stemming from his desire to appease the opposition. Remember how, to the delight of congressional Democrats, he reneged on his "read my lips" pledge regarding taxes?

But that miscue, which helped cost him re-election in 1992, pales in comparison to his greatest blunder. That would be the nomination of David Souter to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Back in 1990, David Souter was a relatively anonymous, neophyte jurist on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, fresh up after seven years on the New Hampshire Supreme Court. But just months into Mr. Souter's federal tenure, long-time liberal William J. Brennan announced his retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. Bush's chief of staff at the time was John Sununu, a former New Hampshire governor who eagerly recommended Mr. Souter for the prestigious promotion, promising his appointment would be a "home run" for conservatives.

Mr. Bush went along, the Senate easily confirmed him -- and it wasn't more than a few years before David Souter was a firmly entrenched member of the court's liberal wing.

On Thursday, word broke that Justice Souter will retire from the high court when the term ends in July. President Obama wasted little time seizing the moment.

"As I make this decision," Mr. Obama said Friday, "I intend to consult with members of both parties, across the political spectrum. And it is my hope that we can swear in our new Supreme Court justice in time for him or her to be seated by the first Monday in October."

Justice Souter's tenure was largely unremarkable. He avoided the limelight and was a reliable vote for expanding federal powers at the expense of individual rights -- even going so far as to cast the swing vote in a 5-4 decision embracing the government's right to seize property from private landowners on behalf of developers.

The departure of Justice Souter is unlikely to change the court's ideological bent. While no one can predict the ultimate political evolution of a judicial nominee, you can be sure that Mr. Obama will go to great pains to put forth a reliably liberal jurist who will snuggle in comfortably between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

The real question: How liberal a nominee will Senate Republicans tolerate? Over the past 25 years, Democrats have made a sport of defenestrating the judicial nominees of Republican presidents -- even Mr. Souter was savagely attacked by the likes of Ted Kennedy, NOW and the NAACP during his nomination hearings. Republicans probably lack the numbers to sustain any kind of filibuster over the matter, but it will no doubt be amusing to watch Democrats wring their hands in horror over any GOP obstructionism.

Within reason, the president -- regardless of party -- should be granted leeway in carrying out his constitutional duties involving appointments. While on the campaign trail, Mr. Obama emphasized "fairness" and "social justice" as qualities he'd consider when appointing judges. Fine. But let's hope he also finds "devotion to the ideals of the Constitution" an important factor. We'll soon find out.