Letters

Baseball and the U.S. Supreme Court’s legitimacy have a lot in common.

Baseball has rules. The Supreme Court has laws. Baseball has established its rules through precedent. The strike zone is an element of that precedent. The zone is accepted as being between a batter’s shoulders and knees in height, and the width of the plate for width. The size of the zone changes a bit in accordance to a batter’s height.

When a ball comes toward the dead center of the strike zone, the call is a strike (in 99.99 percent of the cases) by the umpire. Over a century of precedent has established that this is a strike. The umpire is not to consider whether the batter is politically on the left or right, someone he likes, his religious affiliation or ethnic background. The only factor that matters is the position of the ball as it travels through or outside of the strike zone.

When the ball is on the edge of the strike zone, there is a judgment call of either a ball or a strike. That judgment should not take into account anything about the batter personally. If personal or political calls of balls and strikes come into play, the whole legitimacy and integrity of the game comes into question. Can the game of baseball go on? Would you go see a baseball game if you knew that the umpires were deliberately calling the game based on their likes or dislikes of the opposing team?

The same can be applied when talking about the Supreme Court and its legitimacy in regards to ignoring established law precedent. If decades of precedent have been established in regard to a ruling, and nothing has changed in the daily lives of citizens and the laws, could the Supreme Court ignore that precedent? Can an ever-changing political make-up of the Supreme Court justices change the strike zone of the law?

The strike zone — or, in this case, precedent law — should not be affected by the political persuasion of the court. Who would want to go to the game or, even worse, live in a nation where precedent is ignored and political waves determine what is law and what it is not?

A dangerous time, indeed, for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and its standing as an impartial umpire in ignoring precedent. A ball is a ball and a strike is a strike, no matter what the umpire personally or politically feels or believes. The same for justices of the Supreme Court in regards to precedent law.

Please just, “Call ’em as you see ’em!” and, “Play ball!”

Bruce G. Mermelstein

Southampton