Home Local News We need term limits for the Supreme Court – Chicago Tribune

We need term limits for the Supreme Court – Chicago Tribune

We need term limits for the Supreme Court – Chicago Tribune

On June 24, I woke up and immediately reached for my phone. The first thing I noticed was a New York Times notification stating that the worst had happened: Roe v. Wade had been overturned. I was appalled that a single court could remove a right that had been established and protected for nearly 50 years, especially considering that a majority of Americans identify as “pro-choice.” I also learned about other rights that were now in peril because a small group of people had an inordinate amount of power.

I eventually realized that the problem did not lie solely with those who were picked for the court but also the system itself. Supreme Court justices enjoy lifetime tenure. However, this restricts our ability to adapt the court to the values ​​of the American people. This system is actually unconventional, if no other country has lifetime tenure for its justices. Those opposed to term limits may assert that democracy itself was unconventional when our nation was first founded. However, lifetime tenure has the added issue of being unpopular, with 67% of Americans supporting term limits for Supreme Court Justices, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll.

Term limits would prevent a stagnant court from anchoring this nation to the past. This November, vote for politicians who are willing to enact real change. Write to your representatives and ask what they can do to fix this issue. Our future depends on it.

— Milana Carse, Barrington

Too few citizens understand the true impact of the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade. The abortion decision should have been a by-state issue as the Constitution does not contain any provision regarding abortion. Common sense suggests that the individual states should decide the abortion issue. Power to the people, not the politicians!

The Biden administration slammed the Indiana ban on abortion. Voters in Kansas elected to allow abortion rights. Isn’t that the American way?

After all is said and done, some states will allow abortion; others, not. Isn’t that better than the federal government’s approach of “one size fits all”?

— Joseph A. Murzanski, Orland Park

Hooray for Kansas! Let the will of the people be known. Let’s have abortion rights as a referendum in the rest of the states this November and see what people really think.

— Georgiana Dodd, Homewood

I sure wish I had the contract to supply pens to President Joe Biden and Gov. JB Pritzker.

— Jim Phillips, Wheaton

There are some things that are sacred and should not be sold, such as the naming rights to Soldier Field. Would we sell the naming rights to a church or cemetery? How about selling the naming rights to City Hall?

It’s disgraceful that Chicago hasn’t changed the name of Ninos Heroes Elementary School, which honors Mexican military academy cadets who, in spite of orders to retreat from their academy, chose to stay and fight to the death against advancing US forces during our war with Mexico, but is considering selling the naming rights to an edifice that honors our brave military members who have fought and died for our freedom.

— Larry E. Nazimek, Chicago

Soldier Field was given its name on Nov. 11, 1925, in honor of those who died for our country. If Mayor Lori Lightfoot and others sell the naming rights, I ask as an Army veteran that everyone who supports keeping the name Soldier Field boycott the stadium and the company that wins the naming rights.

God bless America and those who gave the ultimate price for us, and God bless all veterans who took the oath to defend America.

— Carl F. Rollberg, Calumet Park

I was an 18-year-old in the Navy when the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki. I, too, visited the very moving Hiroshima memorial many years later.

Nevertheless, I still wonder: If President Harry Truman had decided to drop the bomb on an obscure Pacific island instead, so that Japanese government leaders could see the incredible devastation, would the Japanese decision to finally accept unconditional surrender have occurred anyway? Just asking.

— Bernard Berkin, Highland Park

Join the conversation in our Letters to the Editor Facebook group.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor gentlemen or email letters@chicagotribune.com.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here