To the Editor:
Re “The Election Is Essential to the Way forward for the Supreme Court docket,” by Erwin Chemerinsky (Opinion visitor essay, July 31):
Relating to this essay supporting President Biden’s effort to reform the Supreme Court docket, in addition to the present Democratic push on this identical route, does anybody critically consider that this is able to be a problem in any respect if the Democrats had been happy with the Supreme Court docket choices?
The one purpose it is a matter is that they don’t just like the current outcomes from that courtroom, and that’s the very purpose that Supreme Court docket reform is a foul thought: It’s 100% politically motivated.
The motion would have much more credibility if it wasn’t arising instantly on the heels of current Supreme Court docket choices that the Democrats don’t like, reminiscent of increasing the scope of presidential immunity, overturning the Chevron doctrine and particularly overturning Roe v. Wade.
Peter E. Meltzer
Wynnewood, Pa.
To the Editor:
Whereas I usually agree with Erwin Chemerinsky, I differ right here on two essential factors.
First, he argues {that a} constitutional modification is required to impose time period limits. As defined in an in depth report by the revered Brennan Heart for Justice, implementing 18-year lively phrases for justices by congressional statute “is in keeping with the Structure’s textual content and construction” and “with the methods through which Congress has lengthy regulated the Court docket, together with the present system of senior judges.” Quite a few main constitutional students have lengthy agreed with this evaluation.
Second, you can’t and shouldn’t separate coverage reforms from elections. President Biden’s announcement of vital reforms to handle the flagrant unethical conduct and excessive abuses of the present courtroom majority elevates the Supreme Court docket as a vital voting concern, appropriately for our democracy.
Larry Ottinger
Chevy Chase, Md.
The author, a constitutional and civil rights lawyer, is former president of the Heart for Lobbying within the Public Curiosity.
To the Editor:
I agree with Erwin Chemerinsky’s primary premise. The election is certainly essential to the way forward for the Supreme Court docket, and by extension, the nation. However as he notes with regard to time period limits, the Structure states, “The Judges, each of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall maintain their Places of work throughout good Behaviour.”
The Structure gives for lifetime appointment of federal judges however doesn’t essentially require that the choose stay on the identical courtroom. There needs to be no constitutional barrier to reassigning justices to a different courtroom, which may very well be achieved and not using a constitutional modification.
Tobi Berk Arias
Princeton Junction, N.J.
To the Editor:
If the Democrats don’t win in November, are you able to think about a federal judiciary composed of extra Aileen Cannons?
Arthur M. Halpern
Rockville, Md.
To the Editor:
Re “Biden Lays Out Plan to Change Supreme Court docket” (entrance web page, July 30):
I do agree with President Biden’s considerations relating to the Supreme Court docket’s newest determination relating to presidential immunity. It places an excessive amount of energy within the fingers of 1 particular person with out making an allowance for what energy can do even to good individuals. It’s a determination that could be supported by those that stay within the ivory tower of principle, however that’s extraordinarily harmful in the true world.
I additionally assist the president’s name for the imposition of a code of ethics that have to be adhered to by the justices of the Supreme Court docket.
In each circumstances, I’m guided by the precept that these requirements that different residents should observe also needs to apply to individuals in energy.
Nonetheless, I don’t consider in time period limits for the justices on the Supreme Court docket. This cheapens President Biden’s remarks as it’s nothing greater than a partisan try and take away conservative justices from the nation’s highest courtroom.
Charles R. Cronin Jr.
Hempstead, N.Y.
To the Editor:
For the reason that Supreme Court docket’s immunity determination I’ve lastly begun to know what an originalist is. It’s somebody who makes wildly unique interpretations of the Structure that nobody, together with the founding fathers, ever supposed.
Hal Gelb
Oakland, Calif.
Why We Should Finish Solitary Confinement
And whereas most research discover no causal hyperlink that solitary confinement makes jails safer, a minimum of one examine reveals that extreme psychological well being deterioration attributable to segregation results in elevated aggression.
Solitary confinement doesn’t preserve anybody safer. There’s a human value to placing individuals in solitary confinement. It’s the destruction of 1’s thoughts, physique and soul.
Delia Addo-Yobo
Washington
The author is a workers lawyer at Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights.
Desk Tennis, Anybody?
To the Editor:
Re “Can You Beat the Olympians at Desk Tennis? Cease Asking” (entrance web page, Aug. 1):
The reply requires just one phrase: no.
I’ve performed desk tennis socially and in competitions. It’s a nice sport in that many individuals can play it, and luxuriate in it, however some persons are simply higher.
I as soon as performed towards an Olympian in a handicap competitors, and regardless of the numerous factors lead I used to be given, I used to be thrashed. I did hit one shot that really beat my gifted opponent — one thing that I’ve retold many instances.
Champions are unbeatable by the common participant on this and different sports activities. However it’s the common gamers who preserve the game going, and they need to be cheered for his or her efforts — and that occasional particular shot that may be a excessive level of their lives.
Dennis Fitzgerald
Melbourne, Australia
A Profitable Marketing campaign Subject: Limits on Curiosity Charges
To the Editor:
Right here’s a fast piece of marketing campaign recommendation for Kamala Harris that I consider might assist safe her election: Promise that you’ll push for laws that limits the extent of rates of interest that banks and bank card corporations can cost customers.
It’s the most unfair and painful value that many working women and men need to bear every month, usually paying right this moment between 25 % and 30 % on their rising month-to-month balances.
Capping these charges at say 5 % above the prevailing federal funds fee would, for instance, scale back the charges right this moment to 10 %, nonetheless extraordinarily worthwhile for these establishments, and manageable for the buyer. A successful piece of laws if there ever was one!
Jonathan M. Nadler
Miami Seashore
