To the Editor:

While the original spirit of the “for-life” appointment of Supreme Court justices is understandable given the early political desire for independence in court rulings, however, and unfortunately, the Supreme Court, today, has just become a further extension of partisan politics. If the Supreme Court is going to function as a political body and, essentially, as a third chamber of the Legislature where the justices, in effect, advance the agenda of the party of the president who appointed them, then they should be answerable, in some way, to the voter. Whether it is a direct election by the people or election by the Congress, they should no longer enjoy life terms by Presidential appointment, in the absence of public determination. 

The Supreme Court is the only appointed body in our governmental process. Should it be? Is there any question in your mind that the political party in power will appoint a constituent to the court that supports the same political ideology? While I can understand the political bias of the legislative and the executive branches, the Supreme Court has a unique and definite objective, which is to interpret the laws established by the other branches. Should the people have a say in such appointments? While electing individuals to any position remains political, still the people should have a say in each of the selected branches. It does not mater whether the populace has gathered all pertinent information. What matters is that they have a say in the process. Like all of our elections, we pay the price for not vetting each candidate. Should that not be true in selecting Supreme Court members?  

It is incumbent upon every legal voter to do his or her homework. The candidates provide us with their backgrounds and accomplishments, and we must then decide whether they are appropriate for the selected positions. It should be our responsibility to vet the candidates, not those in positions of power. There are many questions to be resolved regarding Supreme Court membership. Should the Court have term limitations? Should they be elected or appointed? Does political party membership have significance over qualifications? What significance is placed on their backgrounds and accomplishments?  Should court membership be for life?

There are additional questions that require evaluation. Is the public capable of selecting Supreme Court Justices? Since each member is significant, relative to his or her education, practical and/or work abilities, should that be the deciding factor?  Evaluating our laws is a significant task, which must be performed absent of political partisanship. The definition of “resolution” is: “a formal expression of the consensus at a meeting, arrived at after discussion and usually as the result of a vote.” So, does this issue require resolution? If so, how do “we the people” move the resolution forward?

I think it only appropriate, that “we the people” voice our opinion regarding membership of the Supreme Court to our local representatives, emphasizing our position. They, then, should move to resolve the issue officially.

A.P. Roznicki

169 Hanover Road, Newtown                    July 12, 2015