Change is good

Re “The evolving court,” editorial, June 29

The Times complains about the current U.S. Supreme Court’s lack of respect for precedent. However, precedent has been changed throughout history. Brown vs. Board of Education, which eliminated segregation in schools, was a major change of precedent that is universally accepted.

The Times seems interested in keeping only precedents that it likes, even those likely to violate the original intent of the Constitution.

President Franklin Roosevelt loaded the court with justices who granted him and his successors powers vastly exceeding those that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 had granted the federal government. This violated about 150 years of precedent.

If The Times is such a great advocate of precedent, it should favor shrinking federal power to what the earlier precedents were. I am not going to hold my breath.

Ronald Castles

Torrance