When justices disappoint
To the editor:
A thought with some sense: When a president nominates a justice to the Supreme Court and said justice in some cases is a disappointment to the values of that president, it’s still a republic — rule by law.
Some of the Supreme Court justices who defied expectations of presidents who appointed them include: Oliver Wendell Holmes, appointed by Republic Teddy Roosevelt; Felix Frankfurter, who was appointed by Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt; Earl Warren who was appointed by Republican Dwight David Eisenhower; William Brennan, who also was appointed by Eisenhower; Harry Blackmun, who was appointed by Richard Nixon; John Paul Stevens, who was appointed by Republican Gerald Ford; Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed by Republican Ronald Reagan; David H. Souter, who was appointed by Republican George H.W. Bush; and John Roberts, who was appointed by George W. Bush.
Eight of nine Republican appointees defied expectations, which proves one thing: When a case gets to the Supreme Court, the justices interpret the law pertaining to the 21st century, not the 18th century.
How can any intellectual critic, lawyer, politician, judge, journalist of even a street letter writer infer that’s not what the Founders intended when it has taken 27 amendments to straighten out the Constitution?
I like to refer to the Founders as the good old boys club. It took 233 years after the Constitution was ratified in 1787 to let women vote in 1920, something that was approved by the 19th Amendment. Was it intentional, knowing that the good old boys would unequivocally say yes?
Fear not — no matter who is appointed by Clinton or Trump, the justices will do the right thing — rule by law, not by what is the opinion of some court jester.