Read as much as you want on BostonGlobe.com, anywhere and anytime, for just 99¢.

Letters | CHALLENGING AUTHORITY OF SUPREME COURT

Even if ‘co-equal,’ three branches serve unique role

NEWT GINGRICH challenges the belief that the Supreme Court is the final authority on the Constitution, and Jeff Jacoby says it’s about time ( “Supreme Court can’t be absolute,’’ Op-ed, Jan. 1). “The judiciary,’’ Jacoby writes, “is intended to be a co-equal branch of government, not a paramount one.’’ Surely he recognizes that the three branches of government serve unique roles. We don’t look to the Supreme Court to declare war or manage the federal budget. On the other hand, a primary responsibility of the Supreme Court is to enforce the Constitution when it is politically unpopular to do so. That is not a responsibility we would entrust to Congress.

Jacoby’s assertion that the branches should be “co-equal’’ is blind to this big picture. Citing the Dred Scott decision is equally specious. Yes, Dred Scott is recognized as one of the most flawed Supreme Court decisions ever. It is also a part of our history that made slavery legal, and over which we fought the Civil War.

Continue reading below

Were a Gingrich president then, would he have sent federal marshals to seize the justices and force them to defend their decision before Congress? Or, since so many vocal Americans welcomed that decision, might a Gingrich have supported it, too?

Kenny Likis

Loading comments...

You have reached the limit of 10 free articles in a month

Stay informed with unlimited access to Boston’s trusted news source.

  • High-quality journalism from the region’s largest newsroom
  • Convenient access across all of your devices
  • Today’s Headlines daily newsletter
  • Subscriber-only access to exclusive offers, events, contests, eBooks, and more
  • Less than 25¢ a week