Web Letters: The Supreme Court and the Election: What's at Stake

By Herman Schwartz

This article appeared in the November 3, 2008 edition of The Nation.

October 16, 2008

What's a Web Letter?

Web Letters are continuously published e-mails from real people, signed with their real names. No registration is required. Each article page on The Nation includes a Web Letters link.

Read the best Web Letters on this page.

We're committed to publishing your comments as they are received. We place a red star () on the best submissions and may edit your e-mail for length or content. Your e-mail address will not be published or shared with any third party without your consent.

If you prefer, you may submit a letter to the print edition only.

We look forward to hearing from you.

According to Boris Johnson, Conservative mayor of London, "Democracy and capitalism are the two great pillars of the American idea. To have rocked one of those pillars may be regarded as a misfortune. To have damaged the reputation of both, at home and abroad, is a pretty stunning achievement for an American president."

But it appears that Johnson was stopping a bit short. The three great pillars of the American tripod are democracy, capitalism and impartial justice. And Bush has damaged all three, maybe irreparably.

Mike Cope

Cape Town, South Africa
10/22/2008 @ 02:39am
The article by Herman Schwartz on the impact that any presidential election has on Supreme Court nominees only confirms for me the idea that the stakes are just too high for both liberals and conservatives. I dare to say it out loud, the founders of our country got it wrong in providing for the lifetime appointment of federal judges. Even if lifetime service was not the wrong policy earlier in our history, it is the wrong policy now. In a nation of 300 million people, we have plenty of legal talent.

Some historians argure that the founders provided life terms as the best way to insulate judges from the transient passions of the day and conflicts of interest. But even insulation can be excessive. Many democracies put reasonable term limits on their high court judges. A single term limit of fifteen years should be enough time for a typical nominee to provide for his or her family on what most likely would be the last stop of a career or maybe the last stop before teaching. It would also reduce the pressure to appoint very young nominees who still might not be ready for the job.

Mark Q. Rhoads

Falls Church, VA
10/18/2008 @ 12:25pm

Web Letters: The Supreme Court and the Election: What's at Stake

By Herman Schwartz

October 16, 2008

Cape Town, South Africa

Falls Church, VA

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» Act Now!

» The Dreyfuss Report