Changes

Souter was nominated for the [[Supreme Court]] in 1990 by President [[George H. W. Bush]] to succeed retiring Associate Justice [[William J. Brennan]], often known as one of the Court's two most liberal members (the other being Associate Justice [[Thurgood Marshall]], who would retire the following year). Thus, this vacancy represented a chance for the President Bush to shift the Court to the right, as his predecessor, [[Ronald Reagan]], had tried to do. In nominating Souter, Bush had adopted what has come to be known as the "stealth strategy." Souter had a very small "paper trail," thus making him difficult to label as a conservative or a liberal.  Some [[conservatives]] advising President Bush failed to realize that a stealth candidate may not withstand the intense pressure of the [[liberal]] media after confirmation, a mistake that may have been repeated in the ill-fated nomination of [[Harriet Miers]] about 15 years later.  

Souter was nominated for the [[Supreme Court]] in 1990 by President [[George H. W. Bush]] to succeed retiring Associate Justice [[William J. Brennan]], often known as one of the Court's two most liberal members (the other being Associate Justice [[Thurgood Marshall]], who would retire the following year). Thus, this vacancy represented a chance for the President Bush to shift the Court to the right, as his predecessor, [[Ronald Reagan]], had tried to do. In nominating Souter, Bush had adopted what has come to be known as the "stealth strategy." Souter had a very small "paper trail," thus making him difficult to label as a conservative or a liberal.  Some [[conservatives]] advising President Bush failed to realize that a stealth candidate may not withstand the intense pressure of the [[liberal]] media after confirmation, a mistake that may have been repeated in the ill-fated nomination of [[Harriet Miers]] about 15 years later.  

Bush had received assurances that Souter would be a conservative from his Chief of Staff, [[John Sununu]], who had appointed Souter to the [[New Hampshire]] Supreme Court years earlier. Thus, Bush hoped to disarm liberal Senators who might oppose a blatantly conservative nominee, as they had done just three years earlier with [[Robert Bork]]. But almost immediately it was apparent to some [[conservatives]] that Souter was not pro-life, as he had served as a director on a hospital that performed [[abortions]].  [[Liberals]] seemed to know that they had won.  Even though he was grilled to define his view on abortion, Souter didn't take the bait and he was easily confirmed by the U.S. Senate.  

Bush had received assurances that Souter would be a conservative from his Chief of Staff, [[John Sununu]], who had appointed Souter to the [[New Hampshire]] Supreme Court years earlier. Thus, Bush hoped to disarm liberal Senators who might oppose a blatantly conservative nominee, as they had done just three years earlier with [[Robert Bork]]. But almost immediately it was apparent to some [[conservatives]] that Souter was not pro-life, as he had served as a director on a hospital that performed [[abortions]].  [[Liberals]] seemed to know that they had won.  Even though he was grilled to define his view on abortion, Souter didn't take the bait and he was confirmed by a vote of 90-9 by the [[U.S. Senate]], with several [[conservatives]] voting against him.  

Souter went on to align himself firmly with the more liberal bloc on the Court, leading to [[conservative]] anger at President Bush for this calculated blunder.

Souter went on to align himself firmly with the more liberal bloc on the Court, leading to [[conservative]] anger at President Bush for this calculated blunder.

== Timeline of Souter's shift from [[conservative]] to [[liberal]] ==

== Timeline of Souter's shift from [[conservative]] to [[liberal]] ==

May 16, 1991:  Linda Greenhouse writes in the [[New York Times]] that "Lawyers who watch the Court closely have taken to referring to Justice Souter's chambers as a black hole, from which nothing emerges."  In the same column, she emphasizes that "Probably the most closely watched [pending decision] is ''[[Rust v. Sullivan]]'', a free-speech challenge to the Federal policy that prohibits federally financed family planning clinics from providing information about abortion."

May 16, 1991:  Linda Greenhouse writes in the [[New York Times]] that "Lawyers who watch the Court closely have taken to referring to Justice Souter's chambers as a black hole, from which nothing emerges."  In the same column, she emphasizes that "Probably the most closely watched [pending decision] is ''[[Rust v. Sullivan]]'', a free-speech challenge to the Federal policy that prohibits federally financed family planning clinics from providing information about abortion."