Letters to the Editor: There’s an obvious solution to reining in the Supreme Court

To the editor: Columnist Michael Hiltzik explains how Supreme Court activism can be reined in by circumscribing its jurisdiction within legislation. This seems like a good idea, but it appears to be the same kind of partisan tit-for-tat as expanding the number of justices.

Hiltzik overlooks a much more obvious action: Congress could try to impose an ethics standard on the Supreme Court similar to that applied to other federal judges. For example, Justice Clarence Thomas clearly should not be able to rule on subpoenas for investigations that may involve his wife.

Personally, I’d prefer to expand the court, but the simple, straightforward thing is to impose ethics rules and enforce them by impeachment and removal.

Brent Meeker, Camarillo

..

To the editor: Some justices on the Supreme Court have suggested that criticism by members of the public is of no concern to them and should be of no concern to the court as a whole. In other words, they believe that the opinions being handed down by the court are not the business of the population at large.

Really? The laws are not handed down to us from on high by some supreme being; they are decided upon by the elected representatives of this country, who deliberate and determine the rules by which this society lives.

It most certainly is the business of members of the public to weigh in on the interpretation of those laws and to disagree with those Supreme Court justices who appear to want to shift the law according to their own preferences.

Zena Thorpe, Chatsworth