The Hypocrisy of the Court
To the editor:
Like many people, I hold in contempt the gang of six on the Supreme Court who make rulings based on their political and religious beliefs and blithely label it jurisprudence.
Anointing themselves as “originalists,” they claim to rely on the original text of the Constitution in its historical context. But it is quite clear, once you’ve read their opinions, that they adhere to originalism only when it suits their goals. When it does not, their intellectual workarounds are convoluted and astounding.
They are intellectually dishonest, historically dishonest, and legally indefensible. They decide cases merely to suit themselves.
I am disgusted. And I worry about what comes next, because it is hard to imagine that reversing rights for women, repeal of the establishment clause, expansion of the Second Amendment, and nullifying the ability of government agencies to set regulations is the whole of their agenda.
As I read the most recent majority and concurring opinions of the Court, I am struck by the majority’s disingenuousness and their disregard for the Court’s own history and rise to power.
There is nothing in the Constitution, nor was there a historical precedent, that gives the Supreme Court the power to decide what the Constitution means. The Court assigned itself that power in Marbury v. Madison (1803), the case that established the principle of judicial review. It has wielded that power for some 220 years — to mixed effect.
If the Court’s gang of six were to hew to their professed originalism, they would have to overturn Marbury v. Madison as poorly decided and declare their power to determine the constitutionality of laws unconstitutional.
I do not suggest this should happen; I use it merely to point out the hypocrisy of the Court.
Karen Strauss
Eastham
‘Where’s the Outrage?’
To the editor:
A pay-as-you-throw trash program began in Wellfleet on Dec. 1, 2013 — to protect the environment. At Wellfleet’s 2020 annual town meeting, an overwhelming majority passed a bylaw that prohibits the sale of single-use plastic water bottles — to protect the environment.
Every environment-minded person in Wellfleet should be against the town’s proposed purchase of Maurice’s Campground because, on May 26, the Independent reported that there are an estimated 35 cesspools at that campground — an egregious threat to our sole source aquifer.
The Wellfleet Housing Authority will be seeking a waiver from the board of health so that, if the town votes to buy the campground, a Title 5 septic system won’t have to be installed for six years. The position of the housing authority seems to be, to hell with the environment — saving big bucks is more important.
Where’s the outrage from Wellfleet’s environmentalists over the possible issuance of that waiver?
Mike Rice
Wellfleet
Reporting on Opioids
To the editor:
I like the scope of and the work that went into Emma Madgic’s article on the opioid situation in last week’s issue [“Experts Seek Solutions as Opioid Crisis Worsens,” front page].
The article was mentioned on WCAI last week, which led me to search for it online. Well done.
Tim Morse
Seekonk
