Judicial activism; national anthem; Texas schools

Judicial activism

In trying to lend credibility to the Supreme Court’s rulings saving Obamacare, a writer mischaracterized Chief Justice John Roberts’ actions as “judicial restraint.” (“Right-wing backlash causes Roberts to walk lonely road,” Thursday)

It was, in fact, judicial activism that allowed the law to stand.

In the first case, for example, in determining whether the Supreme Court could hear the complaint, the court defined the individual mandate as a penalty, upholding the actual language of the law. Then, in a contemptible contortion, Roberts altered the definition and ruled the mandate a tax in order to save the law. That’s activism.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be one of the checks and balances built into our representative system of government.

The first duty of all three branches of government is to protect individual liberty against increases in the power of the state. When one branch or two fails in that protection, the other branch must dutifully check the encroaching branch(es) and bring things back into line.

Roberts’ actions saving Obamacare did not bring things back into line. That was judicial activism, not “judicial restraint,” and resulted in the further erosion of individual liberty and increased state power.

— Gary Hancock, Arlington

Judicial activism is defined in various places as “giving interpretations based on personal or political preferences, rather than applying the law according to its original meaning.”

That is what Roberts did in the two Obamacare cases. He interpreted the “penalties” in the law as “taxes,” even though Congress and the president said repeatedly that they were not taxes and they were never referred to as such in the bill.

In the later case, he said that Congress did not mean that the “subsidies were available only to persons enrolling through exchanges established by the States,” even though that was the clear language of the bill.

In both cases, he gave interpretations to achieve a political result, obvious acts of judicial activism.

One may agree with the results of what Roberts did, but his decisions were not acts of judicial restraint. What he did was in effect to “overturn legislation passed by an empowered democratic majority.”

Proponents of the bill wish Congress had said what Roberts said it said. But it didn’t. Changing for political reasons what Congress actually passed is an act of judicial activism.

— Bill Baker, Keller

National anthem

In response to John M. Crisp’s Wednesday commentary, which argued against playing the national anthem at concerts (“Too much anthem, too little feeling”):

There should be no mention of coercion where there is none. There is no coercion by the Fort Worth Symphony Orchestra on the part of the state to play the anthem or to avoid playing it at any time under any circumstance.

Playing the anthem is a free choice by the FWSO.

No one is coerced into buying tickets or attending the concerts. No one in the hall during the anthem is coerced into standing, singing or looking at the flag.

However, someone is arguing strongly that the orchestra and its community must refrain from the anthem and trying to shame them into compliance.

To the contrary, the FWSO should be commended for a choice that is constructively American and musically beautiful.

Last, public group singing is a demonstrably qualitative and quantitative societal good in itself and should be encouraged, praised and reinforced, not criticized, quashed and shamed. To every person who bravely and passionately chooses to lift up his or her voice and sing along: Good for you!

— Gehlin Menti, Arlington

Texas schools

I wasn’t surprised to see a Bill Hammond op-ed piece once again criticizing public education. (See Sept. 17 commentary, “Let’s be honest about the cost of a watered-down education.”)

Hammond is the CEO of the Texas Association of Business.

Despite his expertise in business and politics, as opposed to education, he waxes on frequently about how poorly our schools are allegedly performing, followed by how over-funded they are.

As a retired educator, I’m never asked to write “insightful” articles about topics related to business or politics. For good reason.

Somehow Hammond, a vocal Republican politico, is often consulted for his opinions on education, a profession he has never been certified to practice. His latest piece showcases his desire to see less spent on education.

Politics as usual.

Hammond bases his opinions of our schools on the skewed results of the multitude of mind-numbing standardized tests that our students take that do little to prepare them to think and succeed in the real world.

When political leaders like Hammond speak, listeners should realize his views are based on politics, not actual research about education and children.

And those schools are doing much better than Hammond would like you to believe, despite being underfunded.

— Dan Manning, Hurst

This story was originally published September 25, 2015 at 8:07 PM with the headline "Judicial activism; national anthem; Texas schools."