Adam Schiff

To the editor: Sen Adam Schiff’s (D-Calif.) attack on the Supreme Court rests on a glaring double standard (“How Democrats can repair the broken Supreme Court,” Aug. 11). He declares the court broken because it has “become an extension of our partisan politics” while ignoring how previous liberal courts have ruled in favor of liberal administrations. If low approval proves an institution is broken, Schiff should begin with Congress: A recent Gallup survey found that 86% of Americans disapproved of the way it was handling its job.

Schiff conspicuously ignores decisions in which the court ruled against President Trump, including cases involving tariffs, birthright citizenship, mail-in ballots postmarked by election day, the removal of appointed Federal Reserve officials and the deployment of the National Guard in Chicago. Those rulings directly undermine his bogus claim that the court is merely an instrument of one party’s agenda.

I must hand it to Schiff; he does a masterful job of telling partial truths to tell one big lie.

Sam Chaidez, Mission Hills

..

To the editor: Kudos to Sen. Schiff for making Supreme Court reform a major issue. While it is no doubt true that reform is drastically needed in order to counter the extreme right-wing ideology that threatens our democracy, there is one aspect of the reform effort that has solely to do with competence.

If term limits of 15 years are imposed, a nominating president would have no compunction in presenting a 60- or 65-year-old candidate. That person would be at the absolute prime of his or her career. It could include perhaps a brilliant litigator who now is serving on a law school faculty.

As it is, many presidents appoint candidates in their 40s, long before their prime, and the risks are apparent. Untested ideologues are not what we need on our highest court.

Roger Lowenstein, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Schiff’s op-ed neglects an important feature of a future-repaired court. That feature would be to require any ruling to enjoy at least a 6-3 majority to take hold.

Today’s fairly frequent 5-4 majority rulings reflect the local “political wind” on the day of the ruling. A gentle “political breeze” on that day could flip a 5-4 result, but if the majority instead holds a three-vote margin, we can be far more confident that the ruling carries significance.

Phil Barnes, San Pedro

..

To the editor: Lying at a congressional hearing is a federal crime, yet Supreme Court nominees prevaricate, obfuscate and dissemble their way through congressional hearings. They say whatever will get them confirmed. They promise to uphold precedent and, once sitting on the Supreme Court, without conscience, vote otherwise, exposing their deceit.

Why aren’t Supreme Court justices held accountable for what they say and what they do? Once sitting on the court, why are they not impeached for their chicanery? They are the arbiters of the law, but not held accountable to it.

Ethical standards of the court should be enforced and term limits instituted because this court is not working for the American people.

Donna Sloan, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: To Schiff, the Supreme Court is broken and its recent decisions prove “how unrepresentative it is of the views of the American people.” Perhaps the SCOTUS is unaware that its task is not to evaluate legal questions of legislation, but to make sure that the court’s decisions align with Schiff’s view of the desired outcome.

Accordingly, Schiff then suggests corrective actions that he believes will restore his own preferred view. Unfortunately, the failures Schiff sees in the court’s decisions are the result of legislative shortcomings. Unfortunately, too, Trump has provided a plethora of controversial executive orders and challenges of power that serve only to force the court to become the focus of media attention.

Partisanship and dysfunction abound — but the guilty parties can be found primarily in Congress and the executive branch. The SCOTUS is the least of our problems.