To the editors:
Your latest editorial on the Supreme Court reveals, yet again, your serious misunderstanding of the court's role in our democracy. The justices' priority is to make the correct legal decision not to make idols of consensus, caution and civility (traits that are not required, I imagine, when the court leans left instead of right). Why not be honest and just say that you disagree with the decisions they made and why. Is it because you have no intellectual or legal leg to stand on? In that case it is understandable that you would employ the red herring of consensus to dispute the legitimacy of the court's decisions.
If consensus is so critical why didn't the constitution require it? And why is the chief justice solely to blame? The four leftists in the minority could have built consensus and voted with the majority. But somehow, I think, that is not the kind of "consensus" you had in mind.
Sincerely,
Genghis Khan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment