fails on crucial point
One can always count on Charles Krauthammer to give a reasoned history lesson from the conservative point of view. In his column, “Reid’s power move in 2013 comes back to haunt liberals,” (Saturday), he explains how Republicans came to use the “nuclear option” in the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Krauthammer is right — Sen. Harry Reid did open Pandora’s box and the liberals were thereby punished. But Krauthammer also admits that the Supreme Court of the United States no longer provides a “rugged, reliable frame” for the norms that preserve our vitality and liberty. It has become a “super legislature” — something our Founders never intended.
He continues his conservative analysis, and that’s where I part ways with him. He avers that this transmogrification has suited American liberalism well. Au contraire — it has become the means by which the conservatives can change the entire legal landscape. Republicans have shown over these past two decades that their modus operandi is what fellow columnist E.J. Dionne has called “the politics of power-grabbing and bullying.”
Starting with the case that placed George W. Bush in the White House, a right-leaning court has added cases where money can buy an election; restrictions have been placed on abortion rights; economic regulations have been struck down; employee rights have been attacked; and prosecutions in criminal law have been shored up. Legal scholars who look at overall trends rather than individual decisions show that there has been a steady tendency toward activism in a conservative direction.
Krauthammer warns that the next appointment will tip the ideological balance of power to the far right for a generation. If so, we may be looking at the demise of checks and balances as our forefathers originally envisioned.
MARCIA DE FREN, WEST PALM BEACH
Editor’s note: Because of technical issues, nearly half of the above letter was cut off in Wednesday’s paper. Thus, we are reprinting the letter in its entirety. We apologize for the error.
Sure, why not, let’s
max out Jupiter’s land
Since building codes and zoning regulations seem to be worthless here in Jupiter, why not just build as much as you can, and as high as you can? I’m all for allowing developers to make as much money as they can at the sacrifice of my standard of living and quality of life. That’s just the kind of guy I am. To read about two new developments being proposed near the Indiantown Road Intracoastal Waterway bridge brings joy to my heart. I enjoy sitting at the bridge for an opening which eats up close to one-half of every hour in the season, and the added congestion is well worth my inconvenience to accommodate new residents and commerce. Bring on as much development as possible, I think we should all be appreciative.
Give me a break.
DONALD PODOLSKY, JUPITER
Lawyers know law,
A recent letter-writer seems to misunderstand the law and appears to have no acquaintance with the concept of prosecutorial discretion. While I agree that Orlando State Attorney Aramis Ayala should have made her planned refusal to not pursue the death penalty in any case prosecuted by her office prior to her election, there certainly is no law that requires her to ever pursue it at in any particular case at any time. That judgment is up to her. The letter, “Prosecutor can’t cherry-pick laws,” (April 9), misleads readers and, in my lowly opinion, should not have been printed.
It will be interesting to see if Gov. Rick Scott’s decision to remove Ayala from 22 cases is upheld since he may have exceeded his authority. “This action sets a dangerous precedent. The governor picking and choosing how criminal cases are prosecuted, charged or handled in local matters is troubling as a matter of policy and practice. Indeed, there appears to be no precedent in Florida for this type of use of power,” reads a letter penned by nearly 150 law professors, former prosecutors and judges in protest to Scott.
MARIE GOTTFRIED, LAKE WORTH