Appraising the Supreme Court as a New Term Begins

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/05/opinion/letters/supreme-court.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Re “For Too Long, Biden Has Kept Silent About the Supreme Court,” by Jeff Shesol (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 2):

“Popular discontent” with the Supreme Court because the justices are making decisions we disagree with is no different than believing an election was stolen because our favorite candidate lost.

This might explain President Biden’s reluctance to speak out more aggressively against the court’s recent decisions or to support packing the court with left-leaning justices. Over the years, both parties have used the court to do end runs around Congress and the executive branch. Now it is the right’s turn.

We may never have a court that is an objective interpreter of the Constitution … and perhaps never did. We might be able to change certain aspects of the court, such as imposing term limits, but that won’t address the reality that the court might never be the above-politics body that we want.

Let’s learn to live with a Supreme Court that will swing right and left over the years, creating a rough balance in the long run.

John MiragliaOld Bridge, N.J.

To the Editor:

They’re back for another season! Who knows what new horrors await us? If last season was any indication, we’re in for a bumpy, scary ride. Anything can happen! Brace yourselves! Stay tuned for “Supreme Court Justices: Precedents Be Damned”!

Doug WilliamsMinneapolis

To the Editor:

Would the Supreme Court be considered broken if there were six liberal justices instead of three? In our democracy the people elect a president who nominates justices, and the Senate confirms the justices. So, what exactly is broken?

Antonia TamplinBronx

To the Editor:

Jeff Shesol presents the view that the current Supreme Court is conducting an “assault on democracy.” He wants the executive branch in the person of President Biden to do something about it. In my view he has the situation exactly backward.

The president and the Supreme Court were never contemplated to be imperial, potentially despotic actors that could trump actions taken by the democratically elected legislative branch within the bounds of the Constitution.

Dobbs returned the abortion decision to the people’s democratically elected representatives. The E.P.A. case returned the ability to regulate and likely decimate an entire industry (coal) to the people’s elected representatives rather than the executive branch. How is this an “assault on democracy”?

Mr. Shesol points out that the legislative branch is broken and seemingly powerless to act. But this rationale and willingness to give such power to the president and the courts as a solution are an invitation to despotism. This is the real “assault on democracy.”

David MorganVero Beach, Fla.The writer is a retired attorney.

To the Editor:

Re “The Supreme Court Has a Crisis of Trust” (editorial, Oct. 2):

You note in your analysis of the Supreme Court’s hijacking by partisan extremists that “there is no clear solution to this crisis,” and that none of the proposals for structural reform “are a perfect remedy to the court’s politicization.”

Perfection is never a helpful standard for assessing public policy. The correct question is whether a contemplated policy modification would yield more overall benefit than harm.

When I launched an organization to support court expansion in 2018, congressional support was all but nonexistent. Today, 135 organizations and 63 members of Congress are calling for expansion.

Laurence Tribe, perhaps the nation’s most distinguished constitutional expert, joined the Biden administration’s commission on the Supreme Court as an opponent of the idea, but after he heard all the arguments pro and con he changed his mind.

Expansion is the best solution to the court’s dangerous embrace of radical politicized positions, and hence a necessary step if democracy is to be restored. Even if Congress were to pass legislation banning voter suppression, gerrymandering and dark money, the current court would likely strike it down.

Aaron BelkinBerlinThe writer is president of Take Back the Court.

To the Editor:

Your editorial left something out: There are now five Catholics in the conservative wing of the court, and it’s impossible to assume that their religious beliefs played no role in overturning Roe v. Wade.

In a country where freedom of — thus from — religion is written into the Constitution, religion has no place in Supreme Court decisions.

Ingrid EisenNew York

To the Editor:

Considering increasing life expectancy and the corresponding weakening of cognitive abilities, it is past time for judicial lifetime appointments to be eliminated. For a judge to be appointed for decades, by a president who is limited to eight years, is not the wish of the people. Change, with age limits, is necessary.

Elisha GurfeinEnglewood, N.J.

To the Editor:

Re “Judge Joins the Pantheon: With 62nd Home Run, Yankees Slugger Passes Maris to Set the American League Record” (Sports, Oct. 5):

Baseball is a game of numbers: statistics to be analyzed, dissected and discussed. But there is one figure above all separating the men from the boys.

Aaron Judge looks different from everyone else on the field. Taller, broader, bigger. A man among boys. And so he is.

I have had the privilege of never growing up. I am 70 years old and have the same passion for this sport as I did when I listened to Mel Allen and Red Barber paint pictures on my radio. Mickey Mantle still resides deep in my heart. Now I make room there for another as well.

The relentlessness of this chase and the unwavering effort Aaron Judge demonstrated day in and day out for more than six months was like watching each brush stroke of a wondrous artwork unfold. His love and respect for this sport burst forth with as much force as his every swing.

So: 62 is more than a number. But, as a shorthand, it will suffice. The best. Thank you, Aaron Judge.

Robert S. NussbaumFort Lee, N.J.

To the Editor:

Aaron Judge just stepped into the history books by hitting his 62nd home run this year. Surprisingly, even Red Sox and Met fans have been rooting for Judge. It’s not the Yankees; it’s the man.

I believe that this is something bigger than just hitting home runs. We have been living through some hard times in America, with moral clarity in question, but when the good guy succeeds we all celebrate. This brings hope to a nation that is searching for a hero.

Will Judge realize he has moved into this rarefied status that requires new responsibilities? Will he become a puppet of corporate sponsors or a voice of the less privileged? Only time will tell.

Andrew HorowitzSuffolk, Va.

To the Editor:

Re “Loretta Lynn, 1932-2022: Musical Gem as Gritty as Coal” (obituary, front page, Oct. 5):

I’ll tell you something Loretta Lynn did for many folks, especially in the South. First, she helped make it OK to be from the region despite all the crude “Beverly Hillbillies” caricatures that were flourishing when she was at the peak of her popularity.

Second, she told us it didn’t really matter where we were born or what our pedigree was: We could still make something of ourselves if we tried. Third, she reminded us of the value of family and community.

Last but not least, she helped empower a new generation of working-class women who looked to her as a model of strength and resilience. And she wrote and sang very good songs. Not bad for one life.

Joe ElliottArden, N.C.