xml:space="preserve">
Advertisement

Why the Constitution needs Justice Scalia

Congratulations to Del. Dan Morhaim for his column taking Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to task for not meekly siding with the majority in King v. Burwell (Obamacare) and Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage) ("Scalia's dissents reveal need for Supreme Court reform," July 10).

How dare Justice Scalia use his intellect and wit to disagree with the more enlightened members of the court, especially on issues that significant majorities of citizens have either voted on or expressed their opinions when polled! What difference does it make that those same citizens agree with Mr. Scalia?

Advertisement

More importantly, why should Mr. Scalia use the Constitution as a guide to determine the constitutionality of legislation passed by Congress in the first place?

It's not as if the Constitution is still the law of the land or that his job as a justice is to make sure legislation passes constitutional muster. Such a hidebound mindset might have been appropriate in the 1980s, but this is 2015, and it isn't his responsibility to slow the "significant strides toward a more progressive, more perfect union" as determined by the court.

Mr. Scalia's scathing dissents demonstrate his utter inappropriateness as a member of the highest court in the land. The people should demand that Mr. Morhaim's suggested term limits be implemented immediately and that all justices who have served more than 18 years retire.

Then, once President Barack Obama had nominated new justices who would ensure "an impartial, effective Supreme Court," we could truly make the government progressive by eliminating Congress altogether.

Robert Gellert, Glen Burnie

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement