In the Tuesday, July 5 edition of The Times Record, Professor Held was very critical of recent US Supreme Court decisions (“Self-serving psychology of Supreme Court”).

That is her right under the 1st Amendment. However, in the last paragraph of her Opinion piece, she stated: “Our Justices must serve the American people, not themselves.” That statement is misleading and contrary to the sworn duty of Justices of the Federal Judiciary. A fundamental premise of our Constitution is imposing limits on the Federal Government’s authority over our lives, our “individual liberties.” Among other duties, Justices are “…bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”(Article VI). This is accomplished by ensuring laws passed and adjudicated decisions, on disagreements that come before them, adhere to our Constitution (Article III, Section 2). Thus they only indirectly “serve the American people” by ensuring the other two branches fulfill their sworn duty to support the Constitution with laws they enact.

As to Professor Held’s contention that Supreme Court Justices’ decisions are “self-serving” or exhibit “extremism,” it is not very plausible. If one examines objectively and thoroughly the rulings cited in Professor Held’s piece, she will find that those rulings were justifiably made, based on the need to constrain Federal Government overreach beyond that allowed by the Constitution. When one takes on the Federal Judiciary, she should conclude the argument solidly, on the correct side of the facts. Simply stating/implying that Justices’ rulings should merely “serve the American people” admits a lack of understanding of how the Supreme Court does so — by ensuring that the other two branches of the Federal Government actually support and defend the Constitution.

Guy Mendenhall,
Brunswick

Comments are not available on this story.