In New Hampshire legal circles, David Souter is renowned for getting to the bottom line faster than any other judge in the state's history. In Washington last week, Souter provided convincing evidence that the accolade is richly deserved. After two days of sometimes tedious give-and-take between Souter and the Senate Judiciary Committee, a bottom line was clearly visible to all: barring unexpected revelations, the committee lacks a cogent rationale for rejecting President Bush's first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Although women's groups have announced their opposition to Souter for his refusal to answer specific questions about abortion rights, the unassuming, reclusive New Englander seems to have disarmed most of his committee foes. In a baritone voice, the strength of which belies his slight physique and reticent demeanor, Souter movingly deflected insinuations that he is a legal automaton with little regard for the human condition. As a trial judge, he said, "I learned two lessons: one, some human life is going to be changed in some way by what we do . . . and two, therefore, we had better use every power of our minds and our hearts and our beings . . . to get those rulings right."
But the bachelor from Weare, N.H., keenly senses that he has been chosen by Bush and history to cast perhaps the deciding vote on whether to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that made abortion legal in all states. He gave scant comfort to either side on that issue, flatly refusing to discuss Roe even in the wake of lengthy grilling by committee chairman Joseph Biden. Though he acknowledged the right of married couples to privacy, he refused to budge further in discussing either privacy or abortion rights. When asked whether he could understand the anguish of a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy, however, he revealed a personal incident from his days as a dorm counselor while attending Harvard Law School. Souter told the committee of spending two hours advising a student's pregnant girlfriend who was considering a self-induced abortion. Souter did not say what he recommended, but indicated that he was fully aware of the human dilemma posed by such situations. "I remember that afternoon," he said.
Senate Democrats and abortion-rights advocates in the jammed hearing room were dismayed when Souter dodged all questions that might tip his hand on abortion. "It is deeply troubling that Judge Souter has refused to address the reasoning and legal approach to the fundamental right of privacy," complained Kate Michelman, executive director of the National Abortion Rights Action League.