A reader remarks upon U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s impending resignation from the Court and return to private life.

The reader asks Matt whether he believes Souter’s replacement should come from the conservative or liberal ends of the political spectrum.

Matt responds:

In a democracy, we all vote for a particular candidate, knowing a lot of things about them and not knowing a lot of things about them.  We have found in the past that some conservative Presidents have picked some of the most liberal judges, probably not by design, but because we never know what the human being is going to do in any given situation.

As we pull the lever in a democracy, there are some things that define our reasoning for voting for who we vote for.  There are other ways we can be swayed:  by the candidates’ performance in the debates, or political advertisements, or if some sage we know comes up and whispers in our ear the name of whom we should vote for.

With regard to Justice Souter and his replacement, I happen to feel that it’s immaterial what I as an individual feel about particular situations such as this.

But I do like to look at the consensus as millions of people march out in a truly unique form of government where we, almost as one undefined mind, give the job to a particular person that we think we know a little bit about, and then we wait to see if they react in the way we find acceptable or unacceptable.  As the Founders wisely provided, if we don’t like our decision 4 years later, we can go to the polls and vote a different way.

I’ve been to many countries where this is not the case, where the people are not proud of their government after a number of what they consider attrocities, and they take to force of arms, and you have a revolution where many people die, and might is right, and whoever has the biggest guns, may hold out for decades before the true mind of the people comes forward.

So it would be presumptuous of me to worry about which way you or I voted, or which person a political figure decided to appoint to a particular position.

I think we can read every day in newspapers and magazines and watch the pundits on television discussing what our President and Congress are doing.  If we really want to take the time to listen, meditate, and plow through all the drivel that goes through our systems every minute of the day, then we can find the kernels of truth that are out there, and make up our minds to either endorse or not endorse what we feel about somebody or some issue.

It’s immaterial to my world what an individual thinks except in their own examination of who and what they are and how they are going to personally react.  It does not color my relationship with them; I don’t define them in that particular way; I like to look at the whole person.  It’s probably a lot of work, it’s probably a big pain in the ass to people, but that’s what our democracy is about:  a living, breathing, caring, knowledgeable people, makings decision and then reexamining those decisions regularly.

And of course we always have the possibility that if we don’t like the party, we can go somewhere else.  No one is chained to anything.  There are planes, boats, trains, automobiles, and hot air balloons that lead to all kinds of different places.  That’s what they used to call “voting with your feet.”  But the wisdom of our Founders was that we can always vote with our ballots and our intellects, too.  To be able to not kill each other in the name of everything we feel, is a big, big leap for the human animal.

In terms of Justice Souter, I never answer questions that would force me into one box or another.  I do appreciate your question, though.  I enjoy all questions that are put to me.  No question is inappropriate.  Some of my answers would be inappropriate for me to answer, which is why I never will.  That’s one of the few things that when I say “Never,” I mean “Never.”  If I ever do start answering them, it will be a good indication for my family that I’m in the beginning stages of Alzheimer’s.

Matt