Changes

May 24:  On ABC World News Tonight, Tim O'Brien stated that "Since joining the Supreme Court last October, David Souter has written only one decision for a unanimous court in an easy case. That was last February and he hasn't written a single word since; no concurring opinions, no dissents and he hasn't completed any other decisions assigned to him. On average each of his colleagues has written seven decisions. O'Connor's written a dozen, Rehnquist ten. People are noticing. Newsweek observed Souter is 'slow off the mark' and that clerks of the Court blame the Justice's anemic output for a gridlock in the Court's work. No freshman justice in the last 20 years has been so slow. At this point in his first term, Justice Scalia had written nine majority opinions and seven dissents; Justice Kennedy, also nine majority opinions and two dissents; O’Connor seven majority opinions and three dissents. As the [[New York Times]] observes, Souter's chambers are known around the Court as 'a black hole from which nothing emerges'; it may force a frantic finish if the Court is to end its term next month as planned. At the Justices' ultraprivate conferences, Souter is said to be eminently prepared to discuss the cases, but not to decide them. And Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] reportedly stopped assigning Souter opinions last month because he was so far behind. ...”

May 24:  On ABC World News Tonight, Tim O'Brien stated that "Since joining the Supreme Court last October, David Souter has written only one decision for a unanimous court in an easy case. That was last February and he hasn't written a single word since; no concurring opinions, no dissents and he hasn't completed any other decisions assigned to him. On average each of his colleagues has written seven decisions. O'Connor's written a dozen, Rehnquist ten. People are noticing. Newsweek observed Souter is 'slow off the mark' and that clerks of the Court blame the Justice's anemic output for a gridlock in the Court's work. No freshman justice in the last 20 years has been so slow. At this point in his first term, Justice Scalia had written nine majority opinions and seven dissents; Justice Kennedy, also nine majority opinions and two dissents; O’Connor seven majority opinions and three dissents. As the [[New York Times]] observes, Souter's chambers are known around the Court as 'a black hole from which nothing emerges'; it may force a frantic finish if the Court is to end its term next month as planned. At the Justices' ultraprivate conferences, Souter is said to be eminently prepared to discuss the cases, but not to decide them. And Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] reportedly stopped assigning Souter opinions last month because he was so far behind. ...”

May 26:  The Boston Globe, the leading paper from Souter's area, lambasted him in a scathing article.  "'There is far less basis now than there was at the time of his confirmation hearings to think that he is likely to play an important centrist role,; said Laurence H. Tribe, a liberal professor at Harvard Law School who had argued the case for the family planning clinics in the high court. ... [M]ost court watchers are struck less by what Souter has done than by what he has not done - write.  Apart from one unanimous opinion he wrote in mid-February, the court has not published a word by Souter in majority, concurrence or dissent. The average number of majority opinions among the other justices is more than six.  By this time in his first term, 1986-87, Scalia had published six opinions and five dissents.  It is true that Scalia came to the high court from a federal bench and was therefore more familiar with many of the statutes and issues facing the justices than was Souter, who arrived from the New Hampshire Supreme Court. It is also true that Scalia is an unusually loquacious individual.  But a fairer comparison, with O'Connor, who joined the court in 1981 from an Arizona state appeals court, shows Souter lacking still. By this time in her tenure, O'Connor had written seven opinions, three dissents and five concurrences. …  [T]here is no denying that Souter has found adjustment to work at the Supreme Court harder than others.”

May 26:  The Boston Globe, the leading paper from Souter's area, lambasted him in a scathing article.  "'There is far less basis now than there was at the time of his confirmation hearings to think that he is likely to play an important centrist role,; said Laurence H. Tribe, a [[liberal professor]] at Harvard Law School who had argued the case for the family planning clinics in the high court. ... [M]ost court watchers are struck less by what Souter has done than by what he has not done - write.  Apart from one unanimous opinion he wrote in mid-February, the court has not published a word by Souter in majority, concurrence or dissent. The average number of majority opinions among the other justices is more than six.  By this time in his first term, 1986-87, Scalia had published six opinions and five dissents.  It is true that Scalia came to the high court from a federal bench and was therefore more familiar with many of the statutes and issues facing the justices than was Souter, who arrived from the New Hampshire Supreme Court. It is also true that Scalia is an unusually loquacious individual.  But a fairer comparison, with O'Connor, who joined the court in 1981 from an Arizona state appeals court, shows Souter lacking still. By this time in her tenure, O'Connor had written seven opinions, three dissents and five concurrences. …  [T]here is no denying that Souter has found adjustment to work at the Supreme Court harder than others.”

June 3: The Boston Globe announces, "Justice David H. Souter, whose votes on the Supreme Court have angered liberals, has chosen as a law clerk a Bostonian who works for Professor Laurence H. Tribe of the Harvard Law School, a noted liberal jurist.  Peter J. Rubin, 28, who will begin his one-year clerkship in July, worked closely with Tribe last year in writing a book that defended the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling declaring abortion a constitutional right. In addition, Rubin's name appears with Tribe’s on one of his briefs to the high court in the recent widely publicized case of Rust vs. Sullivan, in which the court approved of a government policy banning personnel in federally subsidized family planning clinics from discussing abortion.  Tribe had argued against the policy for the clinics, and Souter provided the crucial fifth vote on the court against Tribe’s case."

June 3: The Boston Globe announces, "Justice David H. Souter, whose votes on the Supreme Court have angered liberals, has chosen as a law clerk a Bostonian who works for Professor Laurence H. Tribe of the Harvard Law School, a noted liberal jurist.  Peter J. Rubin, 28, who will begin his one-year clerkship in July, worked closely with Tribe last year in writing a book that defended the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling declaring abortion a constitutional right. In addition, Rubin's name appears with Tribe’s on one of his briefs to the high court in the recent widely publicized case of Rust vs. Sullivan, in which the court approved of a government policy banning personnel in federally subsidized family planning clinics from discussing abortion.  Tribe had argued against the policy for the clinics, and Souter provided the crucial fifth vote on the court against Tribe’s case."