I agree with Ruth Marcus in her opposition to the candidacy of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) [“Why Cruz is more dangerous,” op-ed, Dec. 16]. But she was wrong to give as a reason that he advances our need for retention elections for Supreme Court justices. Mr. Cruz served as a law clerk for a chief justice, and he knows what he is talking about with respect to that arrogant institution.
No one crafting the Constitution in the 18th century was imagining a court exercising political powers, as is done by the 21st-century justices. Nor were the Founders imagining that justices would sit for many decades. Many thoughtful lawyers and judges favor reforms to our overbearing court such as the one advanced by Mr. Cruz.
I favor some form of term limits for justices. This would require no constitutional amendment. A new position on the court could be created on the court on July 1 of every odd-numbered year. Maybe Congress might ultimately prefer a constitutional amendment providing term limits, but the court should not meanwhile be left with excessively senior justices forever dictating our politics with reckless ideas such as “money is speech.” That is the sort of ruling one can expect from justices who exercise their powers decade after decade.
Paul D. Carrington, Mitchellville