To the Editor:
Much as I enjoyed reading Tyler Rosenbaum's recent column on the Supreme Court ("The stakes in November," Sept. 12), I couldn't help but notice that his argument is based on a very selective history. Rosenbaum writes of a "holy war" against the Court by social conservatives from the Reagan administration to the present. That's a catchy turn of phrase. Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account who was actually appointed to the Supreme Court from 1981-90.
Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. I'll agree that Antonin Scalia fits Rosenbaum's picture of overt conservative ideology (as does a failed Reagan pick, Robert Bork), but I would not agree that O'Connor or Kennedy could be fairly described as agents of far-right social conservatism. Bush 41 nominated Clarence Thomas and David Souter. While Thomas certainly fits Rosenbaum's accusations, Souter does not - he is one of the most reliable liberals on the Court today.
In a real "single-minded offensive" against "an excessively liberal court," Reagan and Bush 41 would have selected only Scalias and Thomases. That would mean that, with Clinton's two liberals and Bush 43's two conservatives, we'd be facing a 6-3 conservative majority on the Court. We aren't. Supreme Court nominees are one of many important election considerations. But before Rosenbaum makes such dire predictions, he should check his facts.
Alyssa Ratledge '11Sept. 17
