Tweet
I had never considered that mail, emails, calls, etc. would have an effect on them. I direct my feedback to legislators and/or agencies. But maybe it's worth adding them to my 'gripe list'...
Supreme Court Justices Don’t Like Being Criticized in Public, Which Is a Good Reason to Keep Doing It
In an interview last month, Justice Samuel Alito complained about excessive criticism of the Supreme Court. To him, this criticism has not identified discrete problems to be solved but rather represent bad-faith efforts by critics to do nothing more than give the public a “reason to question our legitimacy.”
The not-so-subtle implication of what has become a regular talking point for conservatives is that the court isn’t — and shouldn’t be — responsive to public criticism. And if that’s true, it must follow that public criticism doesn’t serve a legitimate purpose, especially if it is unlikely to spur meaningful reform from Congress.
Yet this attempt to delegitimize public criticism fails at its inception. Even if reform from Congress is not imminent, we ought not drop the focus on another potential vehicle for reforms — the court itself.
There are both historical and recent examples of how the court, in response to mounting public pressure and criticism, has changed its ways, examples that underscore the value and opportunities provided by continued public pushback today.
Supreme Court Justices Don’t Like Being Criticized in Public, Which Is a Good Reason to Keep Doing It
In an interview last month, Justice Samuel Alito complained about excessive criticism of the Supreme Court. To him, this criticism has not identified discrete problems to be solved but rather represent bad-faith efforts by critics to do nothing more than give the public a “reason to question our legitimacy.”
The not-so-subtle implication of what has become a regular talking point for conservatives is that the court isn’t — and shouldn’t be — responsive to public criticism. And if that’s true, it must follow that public criticism doesn’t serve a legitimate purpose, especially if it is unlikely to spur meaningful reform from Congress.
Yet this attempt to delegitimize public criticism fails at its inception. Even if reform from Congress is not imminent, we ought not drop the focus on another potential vehicle for reforms — the court itself.
There are both historical and recent examples of how the court, in response to mounting public pressure and criticism, has changed its ways, examples that underscore the value and opportunities provided by continued public pushback today.
Comment