There has been much discussion in this paper and in other media about "packing the court."
To all my Democratic Party friends: Please do not propose adding more justices to the Supreme Court if you win the presidency and the Senate. That would set a troubling precedent for future Republican and even Democratic administrations. At this point, I ask the Democrats to focus on winning so we can put in place new laws, where needed, that would then have to be upheld by the Supreme Court.
Elections matter. Please get out and vote.
Peter Berglund, St. Paul
• • •
Had enough of the political rancor yet? If we remember the spirit of our founders' intentions, namely three branches of government for balance, there may be a solution. Rather than allowing politicians to pack the court, let's enact a new law requiring a 5-4 balance on the Supreme Court bench. This way, when filling a post, the political party holding the majority would sometimes be forced to bring in (likely moderate) candidates from the opposite party. If the party in the minority loses a justice, rather than being overpowered by the majority party, its reasonable minority would be maintained and would still be vetted. Perhaps justices would retire earlier rather than wait for the right presidential appointment.
This format should force the parties to work together, calm the tension and put our brainpower and time to better use. It would give the electorate one fewer thing to fret about and be one thing our enemies find less of a joke. Let's restore justice and find peace as our founders intended. Thank you.
Jim Durda, Eden Prairie
SUPREME COURT NOMINATION
If Barrett were fair, she'd refuse
"Barrett vows fairness," according to the Star Tribune headline on Tuesday ("Barrett vows fairness; Dems zero in on ACA," front page, Oct. 13). Fairness certainly must be a key ingredient in making judicial decisions, so it is reassuring to hear that Amy Coney Barrett shares that value.
Based on her statement, this is what I would like to know from her: If fairness is such a cornerstone, why was she sitting in that confirmation hearing? Four years ago another judge was denied a hearing from this very group because it felt that to be "fair" to voters, no Supreme Court vacancy could be filled in an election year. Four years later, the same group insisted that a Supreme Court vacancy must be filled in an election year. Either Barrett can resolve this apparent hypocrisy into a fair act, or she is willing to be complicit in an unfair act.
It appears to me that she has thrown away the doctrine of fairness for something else. A fair person would have refused the nomination, in the spirit of fairness.
Alan Briesemeister, Delano, Minn.
• • •
A suggestion for Sen. Amy Klobuchar concerning Barrett: When you find yourself in a hole, it's best to stop digging ("Klobuchar uses spotlight to focus on the election," front page, Oct. 15).
Barrett is a judicial superstar, the best of the best. She is obviously extremely well qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Klobuchar's effort to make her out to be a legislator in robes is morally wrong and an affront to the Constitution, which vests all legislative power in Congress, not the courts. Justices should not and almost always do not make law or public policy. That is your job, not hers. If Congress cannot agree on a law or public policy, it is simply wrong for you to expect any court to make one up for you, especially by torturing ideas out of the Constitution that it plainly does not articulate.
Andrew C. Selden, Edina
We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.
