Talk:David Souter

message: Comments Souter made about the importance of civic education in 2012 gained some attention again in 2016. Possibly warrants a short mention in the article. --Knope7 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 31 December 2016‎ (UTC)
:I think not? "have been circulating on the internet" hardly seems encyclopedic, and the overarching subject matter might also fail WP:NPOV. Also, I think such a thing would not belong in a new section called "Post-retirement." Incidently, I had been thinking it had been some time since Justice Souter sat on the First Circuit, but looking I see that he has sat from January to March these last 4 years. The First Circuit hasn't published a regular calendar for Jan. 2017 yet, merely a special single sitting of 9 consolidated cases for one hour on Wednesday, so I don't think it would even be fair to say there was any change in pattern yet. jhawkinson (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't proposing a new section for the actual article, I was merely thinking of his activities after the Supeme Court as post-retirement activities.. Surely the fact that he still makes public speaking appearances is worth a mention, even if the 2012 talk which NPR and Rarchel Maddow found to be prescient is not a fit for this article. Knope7 (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-retirement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on David Souter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/-Souter-says-goodbye-to-the-Supreme-Court-49426217.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106221819/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh101-1263/49-52.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh101-1263/49-52.pdf
*Added  tag to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDc5ZGRkOGQ2NDJhY2YzZDdlMTdiMThkYmQ0YjVmNzQ
*Added archive https://swap.stanford.edu/20090804004404/http%3A//www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id%3D21755 to http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=21755
*Added archive https://archive.is/20110717140317/http://www.hlrecord.org/news/souter-looks-beyond-supreme-court-1.625945 to http://www.hlrecord.org/news/souter-looks-beyond-supreme-court-1.625945
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am not so in us politics but i am very surprised about the date he gone??
was his party not very very angry about this?
they lost one seat for more or less no reason?
special if he thought about going out long before?
sounds to me for a absolut no go to lose a seat in suprem court for such a small reason like "he did not want to leave 2 persons same year".Shlomo34 (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retire 

message: Currently listed: Only two cases, one of which he was in the minority, and the other a divided majority/group opinion. These are also both hot-button political issues. There must be a broader selection of notable decisions by David Souter? 2601:181:C381:6C80:511F:6DDA:9A68:A008 (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely this article should be expanded. Having written about the jurisprudence of other U.S. Supreme Court justices, I can say from experience it's not easy. I recommend editors making suggestions for cases or sources, if not just writing chunks of an expanded jurisprudence section. Knope7 (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable decisions 

message: In here you reverted my recent edit, noting "not necessary to report on something that did not occur." That's a true statement, but the test is not necessity but rather appropriateness. Here, it's appropriate to explain that the most recent year is not consistent with the general trend (for reasons of recency bias, and that trends end by ending), and there is also reason to think Souter may no longer be sitting on cases ("retired Justice David H. Souter did not hire a clerk for OT 2020 — and presumably won’t be hiring clerks for future terms as well." https://abovethelaw.com/2020/07/supreme-court-clerk-hiring-watch-a-term-like-no-other/).  For those reasons, I'll restore the the language noting his lack of 2021 panels absent compelling justification. jhawkinson (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right- evidently I was reading the change incorrectly and presumed it unnecessary. My apologies! Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  post-2020 by designation sittings