Dear Mr Fredrickson,
.PP
In my recent letter to you, I neglected to adress
the issue of the responsiveness of the Supreme Court
to the popular mood of the moment. It is an issue which
I myself had brought up. The writings of Immanuel Kant,
if I interpret them correctly, reflect the convictions
of the 18th centurys concerning which were shared also
by the founding fathers, the notion that justice is rational,
that it is moral, and that it is universal. The function of
the judge would be to fashion a judgment about earthly foibles
so as to reconcile them in as complete a manner as possible
with the transcendental ideal. As I explained to you in my recent
letter, I no longer subscribe to that belief. I think that the
administration of justice is political theatre which places
inordinate power over our lives in the hands of the actors, the 
judges.  I am distrustful of power.  A Supreme Court which is
a little bit afraid of the New York Times and of the Wall Street
Journal and is sensitive to election returns, is 
less likely to tyrannize us; and for my part, I am perfectly
satisfied that the Chief Justice should not descend from the
summit of some Blue Ridge mountaintop bearing stone tablets
with inscriptions that he claimed were dictated to him by God,
or for all I know, written by God himself.
.PP
Religious inspiration does, however, in my judgment, have its
place in the making of the laws by Congress and those of us who
cast votes. The text on which I think we had better rely is in
the fourth chapter of Genesis, at verse 9:

        And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is
        Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not:
        Am I my brother's keeper?

        And he said, What hast thou done? The voice
        of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from
        the ground. 

I quote this, because our contemporary politicians consistently
aver that we are *not* our brothers' keepers, and then they flaunt
before us the mark of Cain, which they wear, confident that it will
assure them of reelection.  And it is sad that they are right.
.PP
It seems to me of little consequence, whether the laws are made in
Washington or in the state capital, Boston or Austin or wherever
it may be. What matters is whether the laws are good laws and whether
they are applied efficiently and fairly. Since we are one country
there is also much advantage in having laws that are uniform over
all fifty states. 
.PP
We are fortunate that such pervasive criticism of government is
permitted to us, but I think that our criticism should be clear,
defined, and responsible. The pertinent issues are: 1) the function
of government, 2) the size of government, 3) the efficiency of
government, 4) the intrusiveness of government, 5) the integrity of
government, 6) the effectiveness of government, and 7) the scope of
government, whether regional or national.