Cyber Monday Sale: Get 75% off a digital subscription
Readers Respond

The high court's dangerous positions

Dan Rodricks' recent column ("Justice Breyer, the supreme explainer," Oct. 13) points to a historically important incident which exposes the real danger inherent in the Supreme Court's decision-making power, politically speaking.

In the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000, the Supreme Court handed George W. Bush the presidential election on a 5-4, politically driven vote by the court to stop the recount in Florida. Today, all the Republican Party needs to do, it seems, is sweep in the money afforded them by the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling to make good on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's promise "to make Obama a one-term president."

I am one who cannot bear the thought of a return to the Bush/Cheney administration's disastrous eight years during which the Clinton budget surplus was turned into the present economic swamp (in large part due to the illegal war in Iraq, predicated on non-existent weapons of mass destruction).

President Barack Obama, on the other hand, won his overwhelming grassroots election in 2008 honestly and continues to stand by his conviction that a healthy government must have true bipartisan Congressional rule of law, while Republicans, egged on by tea party extremists, exploit their "my way or the highway" steamroller agenda.

Democrats must not simply ignore Republican charges of playing a "blame game" by reminding voters of the George W. Bush years but continue to tell it as it is with the indisputable authority of history.

The Supreme Court must abstain from politically tainted views if it is to be trusted at all. In the long run, history will expose the truth as it was and is.

Elizabeth Goldsborough, Owings Mills

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun