Editing David Souter (section)

=== Notable decisions ===
==== ''Planned Parenthood v. Casey'' ====
In the 1992 case ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', the Supreme Court upheld the right to abortion as established by the "essential holding" of ''[[Roe v. Wade]] ''(1973) and issued as its "key judgment" the imposition of the [[undue burden standard]] when evaluating state-imposed restrictions on that right. The controlling [[plurality decision]] in the case was joined by Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor. Souter is widely believed to have written the section of the opinion that addresses the issue of ''[[Precedent|stare decisis]]'' and set out a four-part test in determining whether to overrule a prior decision.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Wermiel |first=Stephen |date=October 2, 2019 |title=SCOTUS for law students: Supreme Court precedent |url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/10/scotus-for-law-students-supreme-court-precedent/ |access-date=July 3, 2022 |website=SCOTUSblog}}</ref> [[David Garrow]] later called that section "the most eloquent section of the opinion" and said it includes "two paragraphs that rank among the most memorable lines ever authored by an American jurist".<ref name=garrow/>

==== ''Bush v. Gore'' ====
In 2000, Souter voted along with three other justices in ''[[Bush v. Gore]]'' to allow the presidential election recount to continue, while the majority voted to end the recount.<ref name="Dersh"/> The decision allowed the declaration of [[George W. Bush]] as the winner of the election in Florida to stand.<ref name="Dersh">{{cite book|last=Dershowitz|first=Alan|url=https://archive.org/details/supremeinjustice00alan_0/page/174|title=Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000|pages=174, 198|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2001}}</ref>

In his 2007 book ''[[The Nine (book)|The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court]]'', [[Jeffrey Toobin]] wrote of Souter's reaction to ''Bush v. Gore'':<!-- please do not use template:cquote, as this gives too much weight to these words. -->
{{blockquote|Toughened, or coarsened, by their worldly lives, the other dissenters could shrug and move on, but Souter couldn't. His whole life was being a judge. He came from a tradition where the independence of the judiciary was the foundation of the rule of law. And Souter believed ''Bush v. Gore'' mocked that tradition. His colleagues' actions were so transparently, so crudely partisan that Souter thought he might not be able to serve with them anymore. Souter seriously considered resigning. For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice. That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same. There were times when David Souter thought of ''Bush v. Gore'' and wept.<ref name="wsjlawblog">[https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/09/06/did-bush-v-gore-make-justice-souter-weep/ Did Bush v. Gore Make Justice Souter Weep?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171125112833/https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/09/06/did-bush-v-gore-make-justice-souter-weep/ |date=November 25, 2017 }}, ''The Wall Street Journal'', September 6, 2007<!-- accessdate 2008-06-27 --></ref>}}

The above passage was disputed by Souter's longtime friend Warren Rudman. Rudman told the ''New Hampshire Union Leader'' that while Souter was discomfited by ''Bush v. Gore'', it was not true that he had broken down into tears over it.<ref name="wsjlawblog" />