Let me see if I can understand what attorney Christopher J. Wright is saying about Merrick Garland ("A worthy Supreme Court nominee," March 21). The very last sentence of the first paragraph is telling. In it, the author states: "In any event, any reasonable person would conclude that objections to Chief Judge Garland's appointment are entirely partisan." As I include myself as one of those reasonable persons to whom the author refers, I understand that he quite obviously decries "partisan" objections to these appointments. Since the author is a learned man, I would ask him this question: "Why is it that partisan objections are more repugnant than partisan nominations?"

If the nomination is predicated upon the candidate's legal philosophy and political ideology, which every one of them are, and that is fine with the author, why then would opposition that is predicated upon the very same criterion not be similarly OK? Does anyone believe that Hillary Clinton would appoint a conservative Supreme Court justice?

Advertisement

The problem with the process of nominating justices, as I see it, is this. First, with the possible exception of Donald Trump and maybe Sen. Ted Cruz, there are no true conservatives to oppose the liberals. So-called conservative Republicans will vote to confirm ideologically opposed justices such as Sen. Lindsay Graham did in relation to Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts is most definitely not a conservative either!

If the learned lawyer would care to really explore the issue, he would ask questions such as: "Where in the Constitution is the authority to govern the nation surrendered to the Supreme Court?" The answer is: "It never was!" The Supreme Court assumed that authority in its ruling in a case cited as Marbury vs. Madison when it assumed for itself the power to overrule the legislature, the president and the people!

Robert L. DiStefano, Abingdon

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement