Supreme Court succeeds in upholding Constitution: Your Say

Letters to the editor:

As USA TODAY’s article indicates, we have Supreme Court justices, all of whom qualify for AARP, and at least four of whom are trying to decide cases based exclusively on the language contained in a document, the Constitution, that is well over 200 years old (“Chief Justice John Roberts’ Supreme Court at 10, defying labels”).

POLICING THE USA: Join the conversation

They are wrestling with issues and technologies that came into popular parlance and use only in the past 25 years. They will not even allow their proceedings to be televised, and they are dealing with matters of historic national importance. In addition, one member is so frail that she routinely falls asleep at public events.

Why are there term limits for the president but not the Supreme Court justices?

Edward Lumas; Grand Rapids, Mich.

The U.S. Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and the Constitution is the supreme law. Our Founding Fathers were indeed geniuses by creating three separate branches of government: the presidency (executive branch), the Congress (legislative branch), and the Supreme Court and other courts (judicial branch).

The legislative branch enacts laws, but no law can contradict, or be superior to, the Constitution. The Supreme Court does not make laws; it simply interprets the Constitution. While there is inevitable dissatisfaction with some of their rulings, it is not correct to say that the justices are “making law.” They are interpreting the law, the Constitution.

This system of government may not be perfect, but it is the best on the planet.

Ken Abraham; Dover, Del.

Chief Justice John Roberts' Supreme Court at 10, defying labels

Comments from Facebook are edited for clarity and grammar:

“Conservative court” or “liberal court” are entirely inappropriate labels. Democratic court or Republican court are a better fit. What a shame this court is not rising above politics.

— Abraham Washington

It is ironic that members of political parties find it frustrating that they can’t find a judge who will vote consistently for their side instead of following the law.

Shouldn’t impartiality and consistency be the top requirement, which the present justices actually seem to be following?

— Bruce Mort

To overturn a law, the vote should be no less than 7-2. This one vote swing (with 5-4 decisions) is wrong.

— Jackcj Wrangler

If justices make a decision based on their interpretation of the law, they are not “leaning”or “agreeing” with any side, no matter who gets upset.

— Craig Sawicky