Several readers accuse the court of making decisions based on partisanship, not legal reasoning.
To the Editor:
Re “Do We Have the Supreme Court We Deserve?,” by Linda Greenhouse (Opinion, Dec. 31):
In her valedictory regular column, Ms. Greenhouse states that the Supreme Court is no longer tethered to the policy views of most Americans. This is no doubt true, but it is also true that the Supreme Court has assumed too much power. Judicial review has gotten out of hand. As was perhaps inevitable, the court has become infused with politics, and many of its decisions are political, not legal, in nature.
To cite two issues recently before the court, how can anyone reasonably determine whether a federal vaccine mandate or the right to an abortion is permitted by the Constitution? After all, highly respected legal minds differ strongly on both. Quite often there is no “right” legal answer to the decisions that the Supreme Court is asked to make.
Under the circumstances, it seems to me that such matters should be addressed by legislation. In professional sports, unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the call on the field stands. Similarly, unless a legislative act is clearly forbidden by the Constitution, it should become law.
We would be better off being governed by members of Congress, state legislators and presidents — accountable to the voters — not by unelected justices with lifetime appointments. As voters, we would then have some say over critical public policy decisions.
Henry Von Kohorn
Princeton, N.J.
To the Editor:
Linda Greenhouse’s important review of the trials and tribulations of the Supreme Court could have included the prophetic remarks of Justice John Paul Stevens in the wake of the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000. He warned: “Although we may never know with complete certainty the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as the impartial guardian of the rule of law.”
Two decades of politicization at the Supreme Court have contributed to the cynicism of a nation that faces the danger of a recount dispute in 2024.
Melvin A. Goodman
Bethesda, Md.
To the Editor:
Linda Greenhouse cites Robert Dahl’s observation that “policy views dominant in the court are never for long out of line with the policy views dominant among the lawmaking majorities of the United States.” She found “comforting” Mr. Dahl’s anchoring the court’s legitimacy in democratic theory.
While it may be true that the court should and does ultimately hew to majority public sentiment, its legitimacy derives in significant part historically from the arguable fiction that it stands above the democratic fray, applying legal principle, unmindful of public sentiment. The court sacrifices its legitimacy to the extent it takes actions inconsistent with this fiction, when it acts in ways that appear obviously political.
This unavoidable erosion of legitimacy and thus power is why the actions of the court’s current conservative majority and the court’s clear division along political lines are troubling. The court appears starkly political, which pulls the curtain on the narrative that the court is a creature of principle and precedent, not politics.
I believe this is why Chief Justice John Roberts might be concerned about any radical departure from the almost 50-year-old precedent of Roe v. Wade. He may rightly fear erosion of the court’s legitimacy by decisions that appear politically influenced, whether by “the policy views of the lawmaking majorities of the United States” or otherwise.
Roliff Purrington
Houston
To the Editor:
Thank you, Linda Greenhouse, for a career expertly parsing technical legal issues debated before the Supreme Court, and for assessing the current state of the court in your last regular column.
As our justices grapple with privacy, liberty, viability, due process and precedent in the Mississippi abortion rights challenge, perhaps they’ll realize that the court, in deciding Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, already found the “neutral” position some seek. It preserved fundamental rights protected by the Constitution and entrusted this hard, personal decision with “the people” themselves, not subject to shifting whims of state legislatures.
May the justices consider the fundamentalist elephant in the room: Despite our Constitution’s critical underpinning separating church and state, there are people who seek to impose their beliefs on others.
May the justices regain situational awareness and balance, despite questionable circumstances that tilted the bench hard right, and decisively dismiss Mississippi’s unwarranted challenge, and others that follow.
Monique Hanis
Arlington, Va.
To the Editor:
Linda Greenhouse’s claim that the current Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade “because we want to and because we can” can equally be directed at Roe itself. Abortion supporters have to accept the reality that the Constitution says nothing about a right to abortion hidden under the penumbra of privacy. With this specious legal reasoning, the court abused its power to steal the abortion issue from the state legislatures and the American people.
Today’s court would not be overturning precedent. It would be correcting a legal error, just as Brown v. Board of Education corrected the error of Plessy v. Ferguson. Continued racial segregation could not be justified by an appeal to a faulty precedent. Likewise, unrestricted abortion access cannot be justified by leaning on the faulty precedent of Roe.
David G. Bonagura Jr.
Floral Park, N.Y.
The writer is the author of “Steadfast in Faith: Catholicism and the Challenges of Secularism.”
To the Editor:
It’s a race. Will the reactionary, partisan hacks who care nothing for the vital traditions and legal foundations of our legal enterprise, and who don’t give a hoot about processes and precedent, and who comprise a majority of the court, finish the job of obliterating our trust and faith in the institution before the majority of us address the decision that they have forced upon us — namely, whether or not to reduce the present court’s influence?
I agree with Linda Greenhouse, who writes that we do not deserve this court majority that thinks so little of the well-being of our system of democracy, and so much of themselves.
Ms. Greenhouse is a national treasure, and I will miss her regular columns.
Robert Orndorff
Seattle
To the Editor:
Re “Chief Justice Notes Scandals but Pleads for Judicial Independence” (front page, Jan. 1):
Chief Justice John Roberts’s concern about judicial independence is a classic case of too little too late. While he is concerned about legislative restraints on the court, he fails to address why the idea of those restraints has gained in popularity — namely, the public’s concern over the increasingly partisan findings by the court’s 6-3 conservative/right-wing majority.
Had Chief Justice Roberts voiced his concern when it mattered, he might have been able to nip the problem before it reached what some would call a crisis.
He could have shown some courage and spoken out when President Barack Obama was denied the opportunity to name Merrick Garland to the court. Mitch McConnell wouldn’t even allow Mr. Garland the chance to appear before the Senate in an obvious and successful attempt to manipulate the makeup of the court.
Had Chief Justice Roberts, who has a job for life, stood up for judicial independence then, he might have rallied some senators to the side of reason. Will he speak out if Mr. McConnell stalls again, waiting for a Republican majority, should another seat open up?
I don’t think so. His cries ring more than a little hollow.
Michael Pilla
Tenafly, N.J.
