Justices should stick to constitutional role

What’s wrong with this picture of the American exceptionalism of America’s highest court, its dignity, its scholarship, and its incorruptible nonpartisanship? Listening to the published tapes, we learn several justices did not waste the court’s time with constitutional questions regarding how the health care law complies with interstate commerce jurisprudence. Instead, they went directly to the heart of the matter, or, as President Reagan’s solicitor general, Charles Fried, has described it, “hyperbolic, hostile rhetoric redolent of Tea Party slogans masquerading as questions.”

Other observers also noted some justices abandoned constitutional issues for economic policy issues but did not seem to understand how the current health care insurance market they were discussing works. Perhaps a course of Economics 101 is indicated? Or perhaps American exceptionalism and the Constitution are better served if these activist justices forego political and economic issue partisanship and fulfill the court’s constitutional directive to judge solely on questions of law?

Cathy Duoba

Elk Grove Village