6 ms·

Former Supreme Court justice David Souter has died

86 points by danso 1y ago

danso 1y ago
Maybe the first Supreme Court justice I knew by name as a child: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekpUyxovK7k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekpUyxovK7k
- quantumfissure 1y ago
  First thing I thought of too when I saw he died. Homer's random knowledge of Supreme Court Justices mentioned throughout the years never ceases to amaze me.
- aaronbrethorst 1y ago
  it's a testament to the ubiquity of The Simpsons for millennial Americans that I knew exactly what this was a link to before I even clicked on it. And then I did and still laughed at it.
- simcop2387 1y ago
  What about the late Earl Warren? https://youtu.be/FUw9Eo9QqmM https://youtu.be/FUw9Eo9QqmM That's the one I remember from the simpsond back then
detourdog 1y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWcVtWennr0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWcVtWennr0 Here he is discussing the dangers of the erosion of civic knowledge.
- neilv 1y ago
  He sure called it.
- stevenae 1y ago
  How accurate is his claim that Augustus became emperor through (my paraphrasing) democratic means and promises to fix real problems for Romans?
  - StopDisinfo910 1y ago
    Well, first, you have to consider that the Roman republic was never really democratic but was at the hand of a small aristocracy which had sometimes but rarely the interest of the Romans at all, let alone the non citizen inhabitants. But even, then it is definitely not accurate. Augustus gained powers through the numerous conflicts which followed Caesar murder at a time when the Republic was already challenged thanks to legions he more or less inherited (oversimplification) from Caesar. He was given powers by the Senate through what we would call rubber stamping only after his military power was inescapable.
  - roguecoder 1y ago
    I recommend "Augustus: First Emperor of Rome" by Adrian Goldsworthy. Given that "democratic" didn't mean the same thing then it does now (with suffrage limited to a small group of the uber-rich), and that some of the problems he was fixing was "the threat of this army I happen to have" and "this war I actively participated in", I don't think it is wrong. He wasn't in Rome when the Senate awarded him power and the Vestal Virgins drank in his name, which isn't something that would be commanded. After decades of war and strife and food shortages, peace under one warlord looked more appealing than having three who would likely eventually be at each other's throats.
    - stevenae 1y ago
      Thank you!
- karaterobot 1y ago
  > What I worry about is that when problems are not addressed, people will not know who is responsible. And when the problems get bad enough—as they might do for example with another serious terrorist attack, as they might do with another financial meltdown—some one person will come forward and say 'give me total power, and I will solve this problem'. That is how the Roman republic fell: Augustus became emperor not because he arrested the Roman Senate, he became emperor because he promised that he would solve problems that were not being solved. > If we know who is responsible, I have enough faith in the American people to demand performance from those responsible. If we don't know, we will stay away from the polls, we will not demand it, and the day will come when somebody will come forward, and we and the government will, in effect, say 'take the ball and run with it. Do what you have to do.' That is the way democracy dies, and if something is not done to improve the level of civic knowledge, that is what you should worry about at night.
  - Amezarak 1y ago
    This is a big problem. Democracies throughout the west are refusing to do anything about big problems that have populist support. This is enabling authoritarianism because the authoritarians present an alternative vision and promise to actually do something. If mainstream parties would just take real action on issues like immigration or crime it would suck all the oxygen away from authoritarians.
    - ls612 1y ago
      Why solve the problems when you can just outlaw populist parties instead? /s
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      > refusing to do anything about big problems that have populist support In most countries I lived in, "big problems that have populist support" are completely manufactured bullshit. Crime may actually be down and populists will be screaming a out it, because in politics perception matters more than actual numbers.
d00mB0t 1y ago
"No not Souter! Oh nooo!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekpUyxovK7k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekpUyxovK7k
shrubble 1y ago
He lived in New Hampshire and after the Kelo decision which allowed eminent domain on a property, which he was a deciding vote on, some local NH politicians tried to use Kelo to seize his property, which caused a kerfluffle in the Libertarian side; if it happened today I would guess it would go farther, given wider divisions in politics.
- ggreer 1y ago
  In Kelo v. City of New London[1], Souter sided with the majority in ruling that it was constitutional for the government to use eminent domain to take property from a private owner and give it to another private owner. In response, some people started a voter initiative to take Souter's property and give it to a private developer to turn into a hotel.[2] The vast majority of voters were against it, and the politicians who backed it were voted out in the next election. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Liberty_Hotel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Liberty_Hotel
- baruz 1y ago
  I remember that decision and am still indignant about it. Why should the government give private land to a different private party? If the government is going to take it for public use, I can see the reasoning, but using eminent domain to transfer to private owners is fraught.
  - detourdog 1y ago
    The worst part is the development didn't happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
  - alabastervlog 1y ago
    It was a terrible decision. Not that those are rare. [EDIT] To make this a little more substantive, on an issue where they extremely plausibly could have decided otherwise, they elected to go for the option that is plainly, guaranteed to be less-just. There is no universe in which anyone with a brain could believe the overwhelming result of this decision wouldn't be to benefit people with power and money at the expense of those without power and money.
pyrophane 1y ago
I was active in history and civics events in high school and I remember going to DC for a civics competition, and Justice David Souter spoke at it. I was a teenager at the time, it was the 90s, and I don't think I took much of anything too seriously, but I remember being kind of in awe of him. He talked about the importance of civic education which to this day that remains one of my core beliefs as an American. A lot has changed for the worse since then, and it feels like we've only gotten further from the idea that the purpose of education is, more than anything else, to teach us to be better citizens and participants in our democracy.
- devwastaken 1y ago
  what you see is a reflection of socioeconomics caused by regulatory buyout and political nepotism. “better citizens” and “civic duty” may have been optimal a generation ago and are now a losing strategy. remove the systems that created corps like Rockefeller and you fix this problem.
senderista 1y ago
I remember him being derided as "the stealth nominee" because he didn't have much of a paper trail that could be used against him in confirmation hearings. (This was of course before confirmation hearings became rubber-stamps when the President's party held the Senate.)
- rufus_foreman 1y ago
  >> This was of course before confirmation hearings became rubber-stamps when the President's party held the Senate Souter was nominated in 1990. The President's party held the Senate in 2005 when Harriet Miers nomination didn't even make it out of committee. If you're talking about an actual vote for a nominee, looks like there were only four rejected candidates in the entire 1900's and 2000's so far (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_th...), and only one of those was when the President's party held the Senate. That was in 1930. Things don't seem to have changed much.
  - senderista 1y ago
    I wasn't referring exclusively to SCOTUS nominees. You think RFK could have been confirmed 10 years ago even if the President's party held the Senate?
    - DrillShopper 1y ago
      10 years ago? Yes. He's a Kennedy.
    - rufus_foreman 1y ago
      In the past one hundred years, only 2 cabinet position nominations have been rejected by a vote in the Senate, and neither occurrence was when the President's party held the Senate. If you look at nominations that were withdrawn rather than going to a vote and being rejected, President Trump has had 5 withdrawn so far which is the most of any President in US history. I see no evidence that the process is becoming more of a rubber-stamp than it was previously. If you've got some, I'd like to see it.
treetalker 1y ago
I met him at the Court once during law school. He came across as the most even-keeled person in the world. I asked him how he thought he had changed, if at all, throughout his years on the Court. He said, "We never see ourselves as others see us." I'll never forget it. He'll be missed; sorry to hear that his papers won't be released for 50 years.
- WalterGR 1y ago
  > sorry to hear that his papers won't be released for 50 years. Are they subject to Freedom of Information requests?
  - WalterGR 1y ago
    If not, that seems ... shocking. Edit: I was not aware of this, somehow, lo these many years. Per Google, emphasis mine: $FOIA grants the public the right to request records from the executive branch of the U.S. Government. However, it specifically excludes the Legislative and Judicial branches, including the Supreme Court.$
rhd1729 1y ago
Radiolab made a podcast on him, detailing about how he rose above partisanship. We need more people like him in the courts. Episode link: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/no-more-souters https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/epi...
- pstuart 1y ago
  Partisanship is effectively treason when party loyalty trumps loyalty to the country. We were warned from the beginning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#:~:text=He%20acknowledges%20the%20fact%20that,among%20groups%20and%20regions%2C%20raise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell...
- Hilift 1y ago
  The Gingrich Revolution happened shortly after Souter arrived. Republicans corrected all the previous mistakes and succeeded in stacking the court after that.
  - rufus_foreman 1y ago
    What does "stacking the court" mean?
delichon 1y ago
Four justices are now older than Souter was when he retired at age 69. Thomas and Alito, 75, Sotomayor and Roberts, 70. Souter appeared to be in good health at retirement. I admire him for not clinging to power.
- Izikiel43 1y ago
  All charges should have an age limit, like 70 for Supreme Court, and 65 for president/legislative. Stop making the government a geriatric
  - edmundsauto 1y ago
    This is fair if there are minimum age requirements like for the presidency.
    - lovich 1y ago
      Not that I necessarily agree with the OP’s opinion, but who cares about fair when it comes to running the government? It should be about being effective.
      - edmundsauto 1y ago
        How would you measure effective? I’m not sure we have any way of measuring anything other than “effective at getting elected”.
delichon 1y ago
Supreme Court justices are famous but not well known. Their names are familiar but not their faces. For this reason, David Souter and Stephen Breyer were frequently mistaken for each other. Once during his tenure on the court, Souter was driving from Washington to his home in New Hampshire, and he stopped in a little restaurant to get something to eat. A couple came up to him, and the man asked him a question. "You're on the Supreme Court, right?" Souter nodded. "You're Stephen Breyer, right?" Souter didn't want to embarrass the fellow in front of his wife, so he said yes, he was Breyer. They chatted for a little while, and the fellow asked, "Justice Breyer, what's the best thing about being on the Supreme Court?" After a pause, the justice answered, "I'd have to say it was the privilege of serving with David Souter." https://x.com/WakeUp2Politics/status/1920887550496927899 https://x.com/WakeUp2Politics/status/1920887550496927899
- freedomben 1y ago
  Hah! What an amazing story. I don't want to read too much into it, but generally speaking I think you have to have some genuine humility to do such a thing :-)
  - quesera 1y ago
    You might also enjoy this: > The story of how Queen Elizabeth handled an encounter with an American hiker who did not recognise her, recounted by a former bodyguard who was with her that day https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/what-queen-elizabeth-said-when-asked-have-you-ever-met-queen-2022-09-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/what-queen-elizabeth-said-w...
- tjalfi 1y ago
  That reminds me of Isaac Asimov's[0] story in Asimov Laughs Again about being confused with Arthur C. Clarke[1]. They had similar writing styles, so it was quite common for Isaac's books to be attributed to Arthur and vice versa. Childhood's End[2] was Arthur's most popular and well-known novel at the time. At a science fiction convention, a woman said to me, "Dr. Asimov, I have just finished your book Childhood's End. I liked it, but I didn't think it was as good as your other books." Maintaining a straight and solemn face (with an enormous effort), I said, "Yes, ma'am. I was frightfully disappointed in that book, which I thought was quite inferior. I therefore insisted it appear under the pseudonym of Arthur C. Clarke, Jr." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood%27s_End https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood%27s_End

86 points by danso 1y ago

Maybe the first Supreme Court justice I knew by name as a child: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekpUyxovK7k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekpUyxovK7k

quantumfissure 1y ago
First thing I thought of too when I saw he died. Homer's random knowledge of Supreme Court Justices mentioned throughout the years never ceases to amaze me.
aaronbrethorst 1y ago
it's a testament to the ubiquity of The Simpsons for millennial Americans that I knew exactly what this was a link to before I even clicked on it. And then I did and still laughed at it.
simcop2387 1y ago
What about the late Earl Warren? https://youtu.be/FUw9Eo9QqmM https://youtu.be/FUw9Eo9QqmM That's the one I remember from the simpsond back then

detourdog 1y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWcVtWennr0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWcVtWennr0 Here he is discussing the dangers of the erosion of civic knowledge.

neilv 1y ago
He sure called it.
stevenae 1y ago
How accurate is his claim that Augustus became emperor through (my paraphrasing) democratic means and promises to fix real problems for Romans?
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  Well, first, you have to consider that the Roman republic was never really democratic but was at the hand of a small aristocracy which had sometimes but rarely the interest of the Romans at all, let alone the non citizen inhabitants. But even, then it is definitely not accurate. Augustus gained powers through the numerous conflicts which followed Caesar murder at a time when the Republic was already challenged thanks to legions he more or less inherited (oversimplification) from Caesar. He was given powers by the Senate through what we would call rubber stamping only after his military power was inescapable.
- roguecoder 1y ago
  I recommend "Augustus: First Emperor of Rome" by Adrian Goldsworthy. Given that "democratic" didn't mean the same thing then it does now (with suffrage limited to a small group of the uber-rich), and that some of the problems he was fixing was "the threat of this army I happen to have" and "this war I actively participated in", I don't think it is wrong. He wasn't in Rome when the Senate awarded him power and the Vestal Virgins drank in his name, which isn't something that would be commanded. After decades of war and strife and food shortages, peace under one warlord looked more appealing than having three who would likely eventually be at each other's throats.
  - stevenae 1y ago
    Thank you!
karaterobot 1y ago
> What I worry about is that when problems are not addressed, people will not know who is responsible. And when the problems get bad enough—as they might do for example with another serious terrorist attack, as they might do with another financial meltdown—some one person will come forward and say 'give me total power, and I will solve this problem'. That is how the Roman republic fell: Augustus became emperor not because he arrested the Roman Senate, he became emperor because he promised that he would solve problems that were not being solved. > If we know who is responsible, I have enough faith in the American people to demand performance from those responsible. If we don't know, we will stay away from the polls, we will not demand it, and the day will come when somebody will come forward, and we and the government will, in effect, say 'take the ball and run with it. Do what you have to do.' That is the way democracy dies, and if something is not done to improve the level of civic knowledge, that is what you should worry about at night.
- Amezarak 1y ago
  This is a big problem. Democracies throughout the west are refusing to do anything about big problems that have populist support. This is enabling authoritarianism because the authoritarians present an alternative vision and promise to actually do something. If mainstream parties would just take real action on issues like immigration or crime it would suck all the oxygen away from authoritarians.
  - ls612 1y ago
    Why solve the problems when you can just outlaw populist parties instead? /s
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    > refusing to do anything about big problems that have populist support In most countries I lived in, "big problems that have populist support" are completely manufactured bullshit. Crime may actually be down and populists will be screaming a out it, because in politics perception matters more than actual numbers.

d00mB0t 1y ago

"No not Souter! Oh nooo!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekpUyxovK7k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekpUyxovK7k

shrubble 1y ago

He lived in New Hampshire and after the Kelo decision which allowed eminent domain on a property, which he was a deciding vote on, some local NH politicians tried to use Kelo to seize his property, which caused a kerfluffle in the Libertarian side; if it happened today I would guess it would go farther, given wider divisions in politics.

ggreer 1y ago
In Kelo v. City of New London[1], Souter sided with the majority in ruling that it was constitutional for the government to use eminent domain to take property from a private owner and give it to another private owner. In response, some people started a voter initiative to take Souter's property and give it to a private developer to turn into a hotel.[2] The vast majority of voters were against it, and the politicians who backed it were voted out in the next election. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Liberty_Hotel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Liberty_Hotel
baruz 1y ago
I remember that decision and am still indignant about it. Why should the government give private land to a different private party? If the government is going to take it for public use, I can see the reasoning, but using eminent domain to transfer to private owners is fraught.
- detourdog 1y ago
  The worst part is the development didn't happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
- alabastervlog 1y ago
  It was a terrible decision. Not that those are rare. [EDIT] To make this a little more substantive, on an issue where they extremely plausibly could have decided otherwise, they elected to go for the option that is plainly, guaranteed to be less-just. There is no universe in which anyone with a brain could believe the overwhelming result of this decision wouldn't be to benefit people with power and money at the expense of those without power and money.

pyrophane 1y ago

I was active in history and civics events in high school and I remember going to DC for a civics competition, and Justice David Souter spoke at it. I was a teenager at the time, it was the 90s, and I don't think I took much of anything too seriously, but I remember being kind of in awe of him. He talked about the importance of civic education which to this day that remains one of my core beliefs as an American. A lot has changed for the worse since then, and it feels like we've only gotten further from the idea that the purpose of education is, more than anything else, to teach us to be better citizens and participants in our democracy.

devwastaken 1y ago
what you see is a reflection of socioeconomics caused by regulatory buyout and political nepotism. “better citizens” and “civic duty” may have been optimal a generation ago and are now a losing strategy. remove the systems that created corps like Rockefeller and you fix this problem.

senderista 1y ago

I remember him being derided as "the stealth nominee" because he didn't have much of a paper trail that could be used against him in confirmation hearings. (This was of course before confirmation hearings became rubber-stamps when the President's party held the Senate.)

rufus_foreman 1y ago
>> This was of course before confirmation hearings became rubber-stamps when the President's party held the Senate Souter was nominated in 1990. The President's party held the Senate in 2005 when Harriet Miers nomination didn't even make it out of committee. If you're talking about an actual vote for a nominee, looks like there were only four rejected candidates in the entire 1900's and 2000's so far (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_th...), and only one of those was when the President's party held the Senate. That was in 1930. Things don't seem to have changed much.
- senderista 1y ago
  I wasn't referring exclusively to SCOTUS nominees. You think RFK could have been confirmed 10 years ago even if the President's party held the Senate?
  - DrillShopper 1y ago
    10 years ago? Yes. He's a Kennedy.
  - rufus_foreman 1y ago
    In the past one hundred years, only 2 cabinet position nominations have been rejected by a vote in the Senate, and neither occurrence was when the President's party held the Senate. If you look at nominations that were withdrawn rather than going to a vote and being rejected, President Trump has had 5 withdrawn so far which is the most of any President in US history. I see no evidence that the process is becoming more of a rubber-stamp than it was previously. If you've got some, I'd like to see it.

treetalker 1y ago

I met him at the Court once during law school. He came across as the most even-keeled person in the world. I asked him how he thought he had changed, if at all, throughout his years on the Court. He said, "We never see ourselves as others see us." I'll never forget it. He'll be missed; sorry to hear that his papers won't be released for 50 years.

WalterGR 1y ago
> sorry to hear that his papers won't be released for 50 years. Are they subject to Freedom of Information requests?
- WalterGR 1y ago
  If not, that seems ... shocking. Edit: I was not aware of this, somehow, lo these many years. Per Google, emphasis mine: $FOIA grants the public the right to request records from the executive branch of the U.S. Government. However, it specifically excludes the Legislative and Judicial branches, including the Supreme Court.$

rhd1729 1y ago

Radiolab made a podcast on him, detailing about how he rose above partisanship. We need more people like him in the courts. Episode link: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/no-more-souters https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/epi...

pstuart 1y ago
Partisanship is effectively treason when party loyalty trumps loyalty to the country. We were warned from the beginning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#:~:text=He%20acknowledges%20the%20fact%20that,among%20groups%20and%20regions%2C%20raise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell...
Hilift 1y ago
The Gingrich Revolution happened shortly after Souter arrived. Republicans corrected all the previous mistakes and succeeded in stacking the court after that.
- rufus_foreman 1y ago
  What does "stacking the court" mean?

delichon 1y ago

Four justices are now older than Souter was when he retired at age 69. Thomas and Alito, 75, Sotomayor and Roberts, 70. Souter appeared to be in good health at retirement. I admire him for not clinging to power.

Izikiel43 1y ago
All charges should have an age limit, like 70 for Supreme Court, and 65 for president/legislative. Stop making the government a geriatric
- edmundsauto 1y ago
  This is fair if there are minimum age requirements like for the presidency.
  - lovich 1y ago
    Not that I necessarily agree with the OP’s opinion, but who cares about fair when it comes to running the government? It should be about being effective.
    - edmundsauto 1y ago
      How would you measure effective? I’m not sure we have any way of measuring anything other than “effective at getting elected”.

delichon 1y ago

Supreme Court justices are famous but not well known. Their names are familiar but not their faces. For this reason, David Souter and Stephen Breyer were frequently mistaken for each other. Once during his tenure on the court, Souter was driving from Washington to his home in New Hampshire, and he stopped in a little restaurant to get something to eat. A couple came up to him, and the man asked him a question. "You're on the Supreme Court, right?" Souter nodded. "You're Stephen Breyer, right?" Souter didn't want to embarrass the fellow in front of his wife, so he said yes, he was Breyer. They chatted for a little while, and the fellow asked, "Justice Breyer, what's the best thing about being on the Supreme Court?" After a pause, the justice answered, "I'd have to say it was the privilege of serving with David Souter." https://x.com/WakeUp2Politics/status/1920887550496927899 https://x.com/WakeUp2Politics/status/1920887550496927899

freedomben 1y ago
Hah! What an amazing story. I don't want to read too much into it, but generally speaking I think you have to have some genuine humility to do such a thing :-)
- quesera 1y ago
  You might also enjoy this: > The story of how Queen Elizabeth handled an encounter with an American hiker who did not recognise her, recounted by a former bodyguard who was with her that day https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/what-queen-elizabeth-said-when-asked-have-you-ever-met-queen-2022-09-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/what-queen-elizabeth-said-w...
tjalfi 1y ago
That reminds me of Isaac Asimov's[0] story in Asimov Laughs Again about being confused with Arthur C. Clarke[1]. They had similar writing styles, so it was quite common for Isaac's books to be attributed to Arthur and vice versa. Childhood's End[2] was Arthur's most popular and well-known novel at the time. At a science fiction convention, a woman said to me, "Dr. Asimov, I have just finished your book Childhood's End. I liked it, but I didn't think it was as good as your other books." Maintaining a straight and solemn face (with an enormous effort), I said, "Yes, ma'am. I was frightfully disappointed in that book, which I thought was quite inferior. I therefore insisted it appear under the pseudonym of Arthur C. Clarke, Jr." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood%27s_End https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood%27s_End