Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search


Responses to the Supreme Court decision

By E. Anne EverySabrina Fullerton, Bob Gregson, Doug Long, Martha H. Dietz, Alan L. Light, and Bob Roberts / December 15, 2000



Certainly by now everyone should be able to see just how important the US Supreme Court is and what national impact an administration's court appointments can have.

Skip to next paragraph

I agree with the commentators who predict that history will not look kindly on the part the court has played in this election.

E. Anne Every Paonia, Colo.

I am glad to see a court decision which voterscan take to every voting board and lawfully demand equal voting rights.

The Supreme Court decision is a triumph for all Americans realizing that unstandardized recounts do not represent equal voting rights for anyone. Updated voting methods and same-day registration might now be a part of our future.

Sabrina Fullerton Dallas

What a sad day for the historical perception of the Supreme Court. No longer does "a judicial conservative" mean a non-partisan judge who believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution; it apparently now means a judge who openly supports a conservative political party's efforts.

We have lost something that's important to our national self-image.

Bob Gregson Vashon Island, Wash.

The appointment, in effect, of George W. Bush to the presidency by the Supreme Court has made our nation's highest election a sham. Given the closeness of the Florida election, a manual verification of the vote count was essential to accuracy and integrity. What would we think of the democracy of another country where the presidency was determined before the results were clear?

Doug Long Downers Grove, Ill.

While a supporter of the Gore-Lieberman ticket, I am not a particularly partisan voter. Had there been an honest count of the Florida votes, I would have accepted the outcome of the presidential election and felt proud of my country's ability to negotiate a difficult and controversial change in power.

However, the staunch refusal of the Republican campaign to engage in an honest recount, coupled with the Supreme Court debacle, has left a frightening moral vacuum in our country. If the American people accept this outcome based on some arbitrary need to "get on with business" then they ignore the most basic democratic principle, the sanctity of the individual citizen's vote.

Martha H. Dietz Kenmore, Wash.

At this time, it's worth remembering that if the circumstances of Al Gore and George W. Bush had been reversed, each side would have done what it deplored the other for doing. Open-minded people admit (if only to themselves), "That's what we would do if we were in that position."

And the ideological members of the United States Supreme Court would have issued exactly opposite opinions if the situation had been reversed. For now, let's all wish the president-elect the best, and hope he proves to be the compassionate uniter he has told us he will be.

Alan L. Light Iowa City, Iowa

The Supreme Court has proven that it is very powerful. After all, five members of the court can change their long-held standard supporting states' rights when they don't like the state's decision.

Now the possibilities are limitless: Free speech, except when we don't like what the speaker is saying. Partisanship may not have resulted in a weak court, but it has compromised the public's trust in a consistently objective judiciary.

Bob Roberts Fairfax, Va.

The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Due to the volume of mail, we can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number.

Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway Street, Boston, MA 02115, or fax to 617-450-2317, or e-mail to oped@csps.com.

(c) Copyright 2000. The Christian Science Publishing Society