We don’t have to follow the letter of the law

LETTERS LETTERS@USATODAY.COM

USA TODAY’s article “For Supreme Court’s conservatives, it’s all about the letter of the law” is a disservice to readers. It portrayed the right-leaning interpretation of the Constitution as a neutral position. The article legitimized “textualism,” as following the letter of the law, when in fact it injects far-reaching conservative definitions in court rulings. Joseph Kimble, distinguished professor emeritus of Western Michigan University Cooley Law School, de- scribed this school of constitutional interpretation as “the brand of conservative judges and judging” that “as practiced, produces conservative results.” Caroline Fredrickson, president American Constitution Society

Washington, D.C.