Saving Democracy From An Existential Threat
To the Editor:
For nearly Seventy Years, there existed a progressive, activist Supreme Court.
While Americans suffered progressive policies instituted by the Court that would have never survived the legislative process, Conservatives sought the restoration of our constitutional democracy by respectfully instituting suits that challenged the fabric of these decisions with constitutional principles.
Conservatives brought these challenges peacefully and with respect to the process set forth in the Constitution that they sought to uphold. They challenged the decisions, not the Justices, nor the process.
Then, in a political combination of arrogance, hubris and chance, Conservative justices, dedicated to the restoration of constitutional principles, became the majority.
And the peace was over.
Progressive activists embarked on a campaign of fear and intimidation that has threatened the security of our Justices, the solemnity of our process and the Constitution itself.
They have burned our cities with impunity and their politicians incite violence against our Justices while denying them proper protection.
And the attacks continue.
Joe Biden, who first demonstrated this incivility as a Senator at the confirmation hearings for Justice Thomas, has decided to come full circle and orchestrate a new attack on the Court.
When Progressives disagree, the Constitution is a necessary casualty at the altar of their power to implement “enlightened” policies. The only flag a Progressive defends is their own.
When Conservatives disagree, they employ the process set forth in the Constitution; they seek to conserve and defend the flag for which it stands.
In November, your vote determines which flag you will defend, and its consequences for America.
Andrew J. Buzzi, Jr
Newtown
Well seems you are on the wrong side, an overwhelming majority of the population appears to disagree with you. Nor should we forget that the Republicans packed the court and denied President Obama his right to nominate a Judge. Your position is really a bit Weird.
Garland’s questionable, apparently partisan actions as AG is supporting the case that holding until the will of the voters could be expressed was the correct call.
Hmm, Justices Thomas and Alito aren’t partisan? Once again, throwing stones before checking what the house you live in is made of.
Only in Blue states is this ‘Weird’ (word of the day)
Andy Buzzi analysis above is intelligent and my opinion spot on. Bruce Walzaks unintelligent comment about being “weird” is in my opinion off color and in poor taste.
It is amazing to see attacks on the Court from the Executive and Legislature, changes which are likely unconstitutional, at best coercive, and frankly ironic coming from career politicians rife with their own corruption scandals. Lets start with the Senate where NJ Democrat Bob Menendez is still serving after being found guilty for taking bribes from a foreign government. People in glass houses.
Once again, out of context points. Several Democrats have called for the resignation of Bob Menendez, including our CT US senators. Though I’m sure noone is saying that the Menendez conviction is partisan abuse of the justice system. Those calling to defund the FBI over TFG’s investigations have no issues with them looking into the NJ senator’s dealings. Right?
Please, do inform us which of the landmark cases ruled on by the “progressive, activist” Supreme Court of the late 20th century you disagree with. Is it Brown v Board of Education (1954)? Or Griswold v Connecticut (1965)? Maybe Miranda v Arizona (1966)? Perhaps Loving v Virginia (1967) wasn’t your cup of tea. Since the Supreme Court has had a conservative majority they ruled in Citizens United (2010) that corporations and unions can spend endless amounts promoting candidates, Shelby County v Holder (2013), which gutted key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Trump v The United States (2024) which puts the POTUS above the law, and Snyder v United States (2024), which dealt a blow to anti-corruption laws. How does one argue that these rulings by the SCOTUS don’t irreparably harm our democracy? Implying that critics of these rulings threaten democracy is shameless projection!
The hyperbole of this letter implies that conservatives are being persecuted. “They have burned our cities with impunity”, are you referring to the protests of 2020, where thousands of arrests were made across the country? I don’t recall any politician referring to the ones arrested as “Political Prisoners” or “Hostages.” There were peaceful protests, but those who broke the law got arrested as it should be. On the other hand, the SCOTUS blocked obstruction charges on hundreds of the January 6th defendants who were caught trying to impede the certification of election results; a process specified in the constitution. Hmm, you find no existential threat to democracy there?
In short, conservatives can attack the Capitol building and the constitutional proceedings within, sanction corrupt practices, and place abusive, self-serving people in the highest positions of power, but those who question and critique them are uncivil and threatening.
Would be nice if these commentors used their own name instead of hiding behind hidden identities.
Our policy change requiring real names for comments goes into effect September 1.
fabulous. As you know I have been advocating for the changed policy for a long time. It will improve the level of content significantly. Congrats.
I am fascinated by your desire to know the “real names” of the people with whom opinions differ from yours. Are you making lists? Thomas Johnson
Welcome to the gulag, comrade.
Constitutional originalists are finally putting the country back on the correct path.
I’m always flabbergasted that Republicans somehow feel that the original constitution felt their world outside would never change. Did the really think, back then, that automatic weapons would become common. The constitution expressed their feeling at the time, and hopefully the Supreme court will do the same, represent todays attitude, not regress hundreds of years.
I know right? The founders definitely wanted to make the president above the law and to allow leaders to take financial rewards from their constituents. I’m sure it’s written somewhere in the Federalist Papers.
The Constitution as written is the law of the land. The Supreme Court simply clarifies the meaning of the document without concern for public opinion and modern ‘interpretations’.
Well no, they strive to understand what they though at that time. Unfortunately that’s a bit of a guessing game, subject to the eye of the pewholder. People often see what they want to see.