Letters to the editor

Supreme Court and the ‘M’ word

In “Supreme farce: Part II” (Commentary, Sunday), Thomas Sowell paraphrases Justice Stephen Breyer’s judicial philosophy, observing that he believes when “laws are ‘not clear, … judges” must rely “on the ‘values’ they see behind the laws,” not the laws’ words. Branding such approach “shameless sophistry,” Mr. Sowell points out its condescending nature. Equally shameless and condescending is how activist judges twist and otherwise play with the meaning of plain words to achieve their desired values-oriented result. The outcome is that their decisions tend to be contrary to the law and pernicious in effect. An egregious example is Justice William O. Douglas’ discovery in Griswold v. Connecticut that the “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations,” affording rights to privacy. Such illusion provided grist for Roe v. Wade.

There are those who have read Griswold and have no clue what Justice Douglas was saying, which is not surprising, considering that his opinion is baloney. It might be amusing were it not so deadly. Borrowing Mr. Sowell’s words, these are the “average” people upon whom activist judges believe they have the right and duty “to impose their superior wisdom and virtue.” Scary. Whatever the court’s motives, snuffing life based upon “penumbras” and “emanations” is sick.

Some activist judges are more subtle but equally effective. Consider the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Most of us have no problem with its clarity. Not so the court. Rather than prohibit Congress from establishing a particular religion, the court believes this clause establishes a “wall” that completely separates church and state. This “wall” is not in the Constitution. It is merely referenced in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a religious organization assuring it that Congress would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, … thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” Jefferson had nothing to do with the writing or ratification of the Constitution, yet the court relies upon his “wall” to abrogate rights the Founding Fathers fought to protect.

One can hardly wait to see what the court does with the complicated word “marriage.”

ROBERT HARGEST

Alexandria, VA.,

Preserving Social Security

“Stop raids on Social Security,” by Lawrence Hunter (Commentary, Friday) outlines the problems with our Social Security program. Mr. Hunter is correct about how Congress has mishandled Social Security. He proposes using Social Security surpluses and owed interest to finance a refundable tax credit for “Head Start Retirement Accounts.”

There is another option to preserve Social Security without increasing taxes or cutting benefits. The first step is to forget the idea of personal accounts. They would be a nightmare to administer. The second step would be to set up a “real” Social Security Trust Fund to save and build annual Social Security surpluses and owed interest. The contract for operating the trust fund should be competitive and awarded to the private financial sector. The goal is to provide a means to eliminate projected funding shortages without raising taxes or reducing benefits.

This action should be taken soon to preserve Social Security without changing it.

Story Continues →