Good Evening
Good Evening

Letter: The Supreme Court should avoid hot-button cases

A view of the U.S. Supreme Court in

A view of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington earlier this month. Credit: AFP/Getty Images / ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS

Since 2010, the Supreme Court has delved into some of the most contentious issues in U.S. politics, from upholding same-sex marriage and the Affordable Care Act to striking down campaign contribution limits and a portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. On these fiery subjects, the court split on party lines. This is not helpful for an institution whose legitimacy is based on the premise of laws ascending over politics rather than politics ascending over laws.

The Brett Kavanaugh hearings accelerated these concerns [“Reflecting on the Kavanaugh drama,” Letters, Oct. 14], but the court can help itself: In the next several years, unless time is of the essence, it should not take extreme hot-button cases. Restraint would help calm the fever pitch embroiling the court’s legitimacy. It also would remind the public that political splits are the exception, not the rule. In truth, most of cases before the court have nothing to do with politics.

The Supreme Court controls its own docket. In the near term, it should use this control to grab fewer headlines.

Alexander Klein, Garden City

Editor’s note: The writer is a lawyer in private practice.

NY should require voters to show ID

As a Suffolk County poll worker for several years, I have seen voters come into polling places with identification in their hands. We tell them it is unneeded. They ask why, and we don’t have the answer. We advise them to get in contact with their state and federal legislators to see whether this can be changed. The voters want to show ID. A few other states require ID. Why not New York?

And every place that I have worked, there has been only one door in the front and one on the parking lot side that voters can use, and there are teachers and security at all corners of the building. There is no roaming around the building [“Discord over schools as polling places,” Letters, Oct. 21].

Camille Morselli, Islip Terrace

Traffic and other concerns at the Hub

“Nightmare for Nassau” is a better way to describe the proposed development around the Coliseum [“Next step for Nassau Hub,” News, Oct. 17].

I work as a docent at the Cradle of Aviation Museum, about a quarter-mile from the Coliseum, and the traffic at rush hour and on weekends and holidays is horrific.

Located near five major roads — the Long Island Expressway, Glen Cove Road, the Northern and Meadowbrook state parkways and Old Country Road — this area is a nucleus of shopping, restaurants and business.

The added threat to Nassau’s already challenged water supply, waste facilities and air quality frightens me. To quote Madame Pompadour just before the French Revolution, “After us the deluge!”

Curtis Field, Melville

Not sorry that 2011 arena referendum lost

I am sorry for the loss of Charles Wang, a Long Island legend, but we cannot forget that he wanted to use taxpayer dollars to fund his dreams to rebuild the Nassau Coliseum when he could have afforded to do it himself [“His dream: Isles return,” News, Oct. 22].

The referendum was held on an August weekday in 2011, when most people were at work or on vacation. Fortunately, some people instigated a voters drive to defeat the proposition.

Barbara Kent, Huntington