To the Editor:
Re “Health Details Remain Paltry for Nominees” (front page, Aug. 23):
While the campaigns of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton insist that the candidates are in perfect health, it is clear to anyone who has lived into his or her seventh decade, or who has spent time around older adults, that the truth does not quite comport with such declarations.
This disdain for health transparency is mitigated somewhat by the fact that a specific individual is constitutionally mandated to succeed Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton if November’s victor experiences an acute health crisis while in office. That is not the case at the Supreme Court.
Not only is there no cohort of federal judges standing by if a justice should die or become mentally incapacitated, but confirming a successor seems to become more difficult with each subsequent vacancy.
Each year, high-level federal officials are required by law to disclose a number of specifics about their personal finances, stock transactions and privately funded travel. Releasing basic facts about one’s health should also be a yearly requirement for these officeholders.
This prescription is most apt for the members of the Supreme Court, who are now serving longer than ever and, with paralysis in the political branches, are deciding myriad issues that have a broad effect on our own fleeting existence.
GABE ROTH
Executive Director, Fix the Court
Chicago
Note from KBJ: Bad analogy. The Supreme Court can function with fewer than nine members. Also, nothing the Court does is urgent. Much of what a president does is urgent.
