To the Editor:
Re “The Supreme Court Needs to Change,” by Kate Shaw (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 16):
Ms. Shaw urges that Congress enact a legislative package that includes a law imposing term limits. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has no such power — nor should it.
Since Article III of the Constitution calls for life tenure (“during good behavior”) for all federal judges, term limits for Supreme Court justices would require a constitutional amendment.
In its history the Supreme Court has had 116 justices. Of these, over a third (46) served 20 years or more (16 for at least 30 years), including some of the most esteemed: Chief Justice John Marshall, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, John McLean, Louis D. Brandeis, Hugo L. Black, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
A number of them continued to serve with distinction into their 80s or even 90s. Some retired; others died in office. Virtually throughout that period, life tenure has successfully maintained the judicial independence of the court.
It also seems probable that the wisdom and experience accumulated through long service by very senior justices have contributed significantly to the soundness of the court’s performance through the years. Length of service, then, should be deemed a positive attribute.
Christopher C. Dunham Westport, Conn. The writer, who is 89, is a retired lawyer.
To the Editor:
In addition to what Kate Shaw has proposed, we should consider other approaches to limit the power of the Supreme Court.
Prof. Julie Suk, in her new book, “The Shadow Court: Rescuing Democracy From the Supreme Court,” has proposed a shadow court, i.e., a kind of rump Supreme Court without binding authority, but one that would create advisory opinions and opinions that would compete with those of the Supreme Court, in much the same way as shadow cabinets operate in parliamentary governments.
We should also explore the possibility of establishing a constitutional court, whether by act of Congress or by constitutional amendment, with binding authority on issues of constitutional law, as well as the authority to issue advisory opinions — much like the German Federal Constitutional Court.
In any case, the ball is now in Congress’s court, so to speak.
Bruce L. Wilder New Orleans
To the Editor:
As a college student, I studied the Supreme Court as a political institution. In law school, I studied its structure, reasoning and constitutional role. Decades later, I remain struck by something rather basic: The court is functioning much as our constitutional system anticipated.
That does not mean it always gets things right. It gave us Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. But then it later gave us Brown v. Board of Education. Americans have cheered and condemned Roe v. Wade and its eventual overturning in Dobbs.
Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison that it is the judiciary’s duty to interpret the Constitution and say what the law is. That duty inevitably produces decisions that large numbers of Americans dislike.
The Supreme Court is imperfect. So are Congress and the presidency. But disagreement with its decisions is not proof that the institution is broken. Restructuring the court whenever its judgments displease the political opposition would undermine the judicial independence reformers claim they want to preserve.
Stephen M. Flatow Long Branch, N.J.
To the Editor:
Kate Shaw’s suggested reforms to the Supreme Court are all meaningful and should be enacted. But even with such necessary reforms, the Supreme Court and the rule of law are sadly flawed.
I left the law after two years of practice to become a secondary-school teacher — I love lawyers, but I hate “the law.” Why? The law is much too expensive, takes much too long to resolve issues and is much too unpredictable — all those 5-to-4 decisions by the Supreme Court prove there is too often no clearly valid legal conclusion.
So reform the Supreme Court. But also find reforms to make our court system — both state and federal — much cheaper, much faster and more predictable.
James Berkman Boston
To the Editor:
There is one huge omission in Kate Shaw’s article. That is the influence and power of the Federalist Society and how it has infiltrated the judiciary. It has given us judges, especially on the Supreme Court, who are now shredding our Constitution and burning the remains to death.
Naomi Canaan Beacon, N.Y.
To the Editor:
Kate Shaw proposes various laws to repair the Supreme Court. And what happens when the court declares them unconstitutional?
Richard Helfer New York
The post Ways to Reform the Supreme Court appeared first on New York Times.
