SCOTUS.

I read with interest the letter from Robert M. Hustead in the December News. Ultimately, Mr. Hustead's letter concluded with the notion that a couple of Supreme Court justices ought to resign. Although law-related issues were addressed in his writing, most notably the recent developments surrounding abortion, an all-too familiar theme resonated to the top --like a ribbon wrapped around a holiday package.

Like Mr. Hustead, I was pro choice in the wake of Roe v. Wade, and remained so inclined throughout my 20s and 30s. Imagine that: a young man growing up in the 1970s and 1980s with quiet appreciation for the almost unlimited availability of abortion. But with the passage of time, I began to think that a mature adult might also consider the notion that valuing innocent life should not be subject to compromise in favor of the transient comforts of selfishness or convenience. There's no shortage of strong feelings on abortion. So, the issue will always be debatable, and civil disagreement unavoidable.

Judges and courts at every level have reversed their own decisions numerous times. The insufferably trite phrase, "well settled law," has been utilized shamelessly by politicians during confirmation processes in misguided efforts to influence judicial nominees regarding future decisions. Another view, more prudential and honest, might be: "Every law is settled until it isn't." With respect for Stare Decisis, and especially the core principle that lower courts should be governed by the precedent rulings of higher courts, one phrase/view depicts a closed mind, the other an open one.

The writer laments the deterioration of public respect for the U. S. Supreme Court, and cites as the "greatest blow to the Court's public credibility," the fact that Merrick Garland wasn't confirmed or formally considered by the U.S. Senate during the waning months of a lame-duck presidential administration. I'd refer Mr. Hustead to the three-decades-old "Biden Rule" on Supreme Court nominees -the 1992 U.S. Senate chambers video widely available. There, Joe Biden, then head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, admonished with unmistakable zeal that a sitting president should not nominate, and that a sitting U.S. Senate should not consider, appointments to the high court during a presidential election year, until after election day.

Portraying the procedural discretion as some new Republican concoction, and stating that Justice Barrett's nomination and confirmation was "in...