Justice Barrett’s ‘originalist’ approach not necessarily pro-Trump or anti-Democrats

President Trump is breaking his arm patting himself on the back for having appointed Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, believing she will support his positions. Meanwhile, Democrats are cringing in horror, imagining a parade of horribles to come. Both sides display a remarkable lack of understanding.

Supreme Court justices are expected to be independent people of principle. And history shows that some of our most important justices have ruled in ways that surprised and disappointed those who appointed them. Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Felix Frankfurter and Earl Warren are cases in point.

SEND LETTERS TO:letters@suntimes.com. Please include your neighborhood or hometown and a phone number for verification purposes.

Moreover, to the extent that Justice Barrett in fact — rather than in theory — practices “originalism” in her approach to rulings, Trump and the Democrats will learn that originalism is apolitical. It is a philosophy of interpretation, neither conservative nor liberal, that seeks to limit and, if possible, expunge the policy views of the unelected court. It seeks to leave policy decisions, in democratic fashion, to the Legislative branch.

William P. Gottschalk, Lake Forest

Shame on hotels for cutting health insurance

To those wealthy hotel chains that are discontinuing health insurance for laid-off workers during the pandemic: For shame!

And to all the politicians who oppose expanded Medicare for all, also known as single-payer national health insurance, as well as to all those who refuse to actively work for it: For shame! If the United States had a single-payer health insurance program, no resident of this country would be without health insurance at any time, no one would receive medical bills, and no hospital would be threatened with closure because its patients were uninsured.

This is a time for solidarity. We need a health insurance program that covers all of us equally, fully financed at the federal level. Everybody in, nobody out!

Anne Scheetz, MD, Logan Square

Count every mail-in ballot

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that mailed-in ballots in Wisconsin that do not arrive by Election Day need not be counted.

This follows President Trump’s efforts to sabotage the ability of the U.S. Post Office to deliver the mail (including ballots) on time. What next? Will voters be turned away from polling sites if they are not inside the doors by closing time on Nov. 3?

In the past, everyone in line at the time a polling place is supposed to close — inside or outside the poll — has been allowed to vote. No one has been penalized because a large number of voters showed up at the end of the day.

Why is this principle not being applied to mail ballots? Aren’t ballots that are still in the mail essentially “in line?”

One political party doesn’t want every eligible voter to be able to vote. That party thinks that when everyone votes, they will never win an election again.

Karen Wagner, Rolling Meadows