Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

To the Editor:

Paul D. Carrington’s Op-Ed article raises some very good points. But he neglects to discuss one vital point concerning why justices stay on, and on, and on, regardless of health or failing ability. That point is the continuing politicization of the Supreme Court.

We need to get back to the original idea of appointing justices solely according to proven legal ability, integrity and strength of independent character, rather than applying (as now, even if denied) political “litmus tests” on matters like gun control, abortion or any of the other hot-button political issues of the day, depending on whether Democrats or Republicans are in power.

Then many justices who stay on indefinitely despite failing health rather than risk the appointment of a liberal or conservative justice—take your pick—might well be more willing to retire on their own.

The answer suggested by Mr. Carrington—councils leading to possible House impeachment—is equally open these days to serious political misuse, depending on which party is in power, and who appointed the judicial councils.

Bob Freedman
New York, April 13, 2009