Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

Tag: SCOTUS

July
11th

COURT: Patty Murray uses sexist language

Sen. Patty Murray is pushing a bill to overturn Burwell v. Hobby Lobby by repealing part of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which Murray voted for in 1993, by the way). Among the various slogans she is using, there is the plaintive cry that “five male justices” have deprived women of their rights.

Evidently, Murray – along with her numerous cohorts – feels that male jurists are not qualified to make legal decisions affecting women vis-à-vis birth control. And yet, one has to wonder: What about the seven male justices who decided Roe v. Wade? Or for that matter, the

Read more »

July
1st

HOBBY LOBBY: Decision is a step toward fascism

The Hobby Lobby court ruling which allows closely held (family? held) corporations to not pay for certain kinds of birth control is one more step toward fascism – which I define as corporations/businesses ruling our government.

Employees who do not hold similar religious beliefs should not be denied certain kinds of contraception because it is against the corporate founder’s religious beliefs.

The Hobby Lobby’s ruling is a step back of at least 50 years. Citizens United was a step back to the late 1800s when the rich really did hold all the power. Two of our forefathers, Benjamin Franklin, and

Read more »

March
17th

ELECTIONS: Let’s take back our democracy

The News Tribune raises a valid concern in calling for electronic disclosure of Senate campaign contributions (editorial, 3-16). In the current environment of huge campaign contributions by wealthy individuals and corporations, timely disclosure gives the public some inkling of who is funding elections – or should I say, who is buying our elected officials?

But the real issue is the campaign contributions themselves. Big money is absolutely corrupting our political process. Shockingly, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (2010, Citizens United vs. FEC) that corporations are people and money is speech! This defies common logic and has opened the

Read more »

June
27th

MARRIAGE: God’s definition is the right one

The pre-eminent destroyer of morality and religious freedom is the Supreme Court of the United States.

But I take solace that God stands above the Supreme Court. His opinion on marriage has not changed, nor is he confused in the least simply because judges and lawmakers decide to reinvent and corrupt the gift of marriage into something it cannot be to satisfy the lusts of the amoral.

Homosexual “marriage” is an idea manufactured by mere man, not God. Intentionally raising children without a father and a mother is a human concept, not God’s. That is why opposition to marriage transformation

Read more »

June
27th

MARRIAGE: The real Supreme Court has not changed the rules

The front-page headline Thursday reads, “Supreme Court strikes down same-sex marriage barriers.” A headline correction is in order.

United States federal court judges changed the law, not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is our Lord, and our Lord has not changed the rules.

Recent state and federal legislation regarding marriage, abortion and drug use are turning our counrty into Sodom and Gomorrah. The rules have not changed, and there will be consequences for our acts. Federal and state legislation does not change the facts or how we should live. There is only one Supreme Judge.

March
27th

MARRIAGE: Court must find DOMA to be unconstitutional

The U.S. Supreme Court must rule the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional as a matter of states rights.

The federal government has always allowed states to set their own definitions of marriage as long as they are not deemed to be discriminatory. Those states that have granted same-sex marriage have by historical precedence the right to set their own rules regarding marriage. States that want to ban same-sex marriage have the right to do so. But by federal law, all states must recognize marriages from other states.

This must be upheld at the federal level. All federal law must

Read more »

Jan.
23rd

GUNS: Base arguments on reality, not paranoia

Re: “Ultimate goal is civilian disarmament” (letter, 1-23).

Like so many on the pro-gun side of the ongoing debate regarding guns and gun control, the letter writer ignores the one major fact that renders his whole synopsis pointless: The U.S. Constitution does not allow the president or anyone else in this country to prevent its citizens from owning guns.

Despite the writer’s argument otherwise, the Supreme Court cannot implement disarmament. In order for President Obama to go down the road the writer suggests as inevitable, change to our Constitution would be involved. A constitutional change to disarmament requires that

Read more »

Jan.
16th

GOP: What has party done for women lately?

Re: “Remember who gave women the vote” (letter, 1-15).

The letter writer congratulates Republicans’ efforts to get women the right to vote in 1920. However, that was 93 years ago and it might have been the last effort by the GOP to help women.

With their continued talk of “legitimate rape” and the Republican-led House’s refusal to vote on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, the Republican Party continues to show its true colors towards women. Let’s hope it doesn’t take another 93 years for Republicans to return to a position benefiting women.

The letter also claimed that

Read more »