Mr. Souter Comes to Town

By JEROME CRAMER WASHINGTON

Even before David Souter takes his place as the 105th Justice of the Supreme Court, he has been assured a place in history. Well into the next century, future court nominees are certain to pore over videotapes of his Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, searching for inspiration on how to win easy confirmation. Souter's low-key, courteous performance was so skillful that the final 90-to-9 vote for his confirmation on the Senate floor last week sparked little emotional debate. Kate Michelman, director of the National Abortion Rights Action League, simply called the Senate vote a "dangerous leap of faith."

The fact was that Senators and the American public seemed as impressed with Souter's intelligence as they were with his image as a shy, decent man who likes old cars, black-and-white television sets and the Boston Red Sox. During the confirmation hearings, Souter, 51, slept on an extra bed at the apartment of his mentor, New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman; soon he will settle into a modest one-bedroom apartment that the Justice-to-be found, with Rudman's help, within walking distance of the court. Souter's few sticks of furniture and more numerous stacks of books will be trucked down by friends from Weare, N.H., after the Justice takes his oath of office this week. "Nearly every lawyer and friend in New Hampshire wants a ticket to the ceremony," says Souter's longtime confidant, Tom Rath, a former state attorney general.

Life surely will change for Souter once he officially dons his robe -- the same one he wore as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge in Boston -- for the first time, one week into the court's new term. The Washington Post has already named him the town's leading bachelor, while admitting that he is not exactly "your standard hunka hunka burning love." In an effort to help him with the local ladies, the Post printed the Supreme Court's telephone number (202-479-3000).

Along with a barrage of media attention, Souter faces several immediate housekeeping tasks. First is the hiring of a secretary and four legal clerks to help sift through the mounds of paperwork and petitions that are every Justice's lot. His clerks will have a say in which cases the court will hear and, along with their fellow clerks, are the only individuals who can openly argue the merits of pending cases with the Justices. Souter will probably bring at least one clerk with him from New Hampshire and will soon begin interviewing the flood of candidates clamoring for the remaining jobs.

The clerks will be even more overworked than their peers, since tradition dictates that the court's newest member must assume additional duties for the eight other Justices. Souter will be, among other things, the court's private doorkeeper, messenger and designated party giver. Last week Justice Anthony Kennedy (until now the low Justice on the totem pole) called in Souter, in part to discuss handing over the "new boy's duties." Souter will sit on the far left of the bench in a chair recently built by the court's carpenters; he will be the last person to enter or exit the chamber. When the Justices meet in private sessions, Souter will open and close the door as well as receive and relay messages. He and his clerks will record which of the many thousands of cases the Justices have decided to accept for argument. And the newest Justice will be responsible for organizing the court's annual staff Christmas party. "It's likely to be a pretty meager affair," warns Rath, aware of bachelor Souter's frugal habits.

By missing the start of court deliberations, Souter will be ineligible to vote on two major cases to be decided this term. Last week the court heard arguments in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, a case that challenges the power of judges to continue court-ordered integration plans after a school system has stopped discriminating. The Oklahoma school board is petitioning for relief from a 1972 federal district court ruling that found the school system segregated and ordered a busing plan to promote integration. Almost 20 years later, the schools are again divided along racial lines, but the board claims this is a result of local housing patterns, not of district policies.

Souter also misses the chance to decide on a challenge to the constitutionality of heavy punitive damages in civil suits. Oral arguments on that issue were presented last week in the case of Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip. Lawyers for the company claim that a $1.1 million punitive-damage award imposed in 1987 by a jury, in a case where $4,000 in actual damages was awarded, violates 14th Amendment due-process rights. Proponents of the damage awards argue that large jury penalties help prevent future misconduct.

Feminists who opposed Justice Souter's nomination are much more interested in where he will stand on one of the first cases to arrive before the court after his swearing in: United Auto Workers v. Johnson Controls. The company, which makes automotive batteries, excludes all fertile women of childbearing years from jobs that would expose their fetuses to lead, which can cause birth deformities. Women employees sued in 1984, claiming the policy was intentional discrimination that limited their right to choose employment opportunities over reproduction, and thus was illegal under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Two lower courts have backed the company, but two prominent conservative federal court judges, Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner, sided with the challengers. Court watchers say this case will be Souter's first chance to demonstrate his sensitivity -- or lack of it -- to the issues of sexual politics that prompted what little opposition there was to his setting up bachelor housekeeping in Washington.