Regarding the Sept. 8 news article “ ‘Everything conservatives hoped for and liberals feared’ ”:

When Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and others speak about originalism or textualism, remember that the Constitution was written by white, rich, Christian men. Many were racists and slave owners. There were no women, no black people, no members of other religious groups, and no poor or working-class people. Mr. Gorsuch and the other court conservatives, all of whom are rich Christian men, consistently vote for the white, rich and Christian population and against those who are not white, not rich and not Christian. As someone wrote recently, the 5-to-4 decisions and overturning of precedent by the Republicans on the bench almost always benefit the white, rich, Christian population. The genius of the Constitution was not in the parts (text), but that the whole was so much greater than the parts. We should not look to what James Madison or Alexander Hamilton wrote in the 18th century, still mired in racism and colonial thinking, but what they would likely write in the 21st century, living in a multicultural, multiethnic, multireligious country. To be a document for all time, it must be read and appreciated in the context of all generations and to the benefit of all people.

Melvin Farber, Silver Spring

AD
AD

In his Sept. 8 op-ed, “The newest political arm of the GOP,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) argued that the Supreme Court is beset by a conservative effort to file “anonymously funded amicus briefs, signaling how the judges should vote.” He took Janus v. AFSCME as his example but told only half the story. The majority of the briefs in Janus supported the union — 39 to the challenger’s 26 — and several were filed by progressive organizations that do not fully disclose their donors, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Public Citizen. Were these briefs also nefarious “dark money” efforts? Or is the senator troubled only by advocacy with which he disagrees?

Allen Dickerson, Alexandria

The writer is legal director of the Institute for Free Speech.

AD

Five Democratic senators filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court that, according to its critics, threatens to pack the court by expanding it. In his Sept. 8 op-ed, one of those senators, Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), didn’t disavow court-packing but said court packing was “something we did not advocate” in the brief. Let’s see.

AD

The brief concludes by stating that “perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands that it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ ”

Court packing aside, the audacity of this sentence is breathtaking. Five Democratic senators, including the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, threaten the court in a friend-of-the-court brief. 

AD

But the brief does threaten court packing. The court would not be “restructured” if it remained a nine-justice court if President Trump were reelected. It would not be “restructured” if it remained a nine-justice court if a Democrat were elected president, because the likely court vacancies for the foreseeable future are Democratic appointees. It’s impossible to imagine a “restructured” court that hasn’t been enlarged.

The senators filed a friend-of-the-court brief. With friends like these, the court certainly doesn’t need enemies. 

Jim Dueholm, Washington

AD
AD