Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

Tag: Supreme Court

June
29th

SUPREME COURT: The sky isn’t falling

I learned a long time ago to keep a safety helmet on hand for those times when the sky is falling.

What? The Supreme Court says same-sex couples can marry? Uh, oh! There goes democracy. The sky falling!

What? Obamacare is constitutional? Darn? A victory for Obama! The sky is falling!

What? States’ rights don’t prevail over individuals’ rights to vote, no matter the color of their skin? The sky is falling!

What? Women get to vote? That is against God’s will! The sky is falling!

What? The Earth really does circle the sun? I’m telling you, I need to

Read more »

April
4th

ELECTIONS: Citizens are being disenfranchised

Re: “High court ruling lifts lid on campaign donations” (TNT, 4-3).

The recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is a takeaway from the average citizen with limited means. If money is free speech, then the financially less endowed are immediately put at a disadvantage.

The ability of all citizens to engage in this mockery of the First Amendment is now controlled by how rich or not rich you are. If, as the Constitution says, we are all born equal, then no other consideration of free speech need apply. If we are all born equal, then only non-monetary free

Read more »

April
3rd

ELECTIONS: Supreme Court pronounces us an oligarchy

Re: “High court ruling lifts lid on campaign donations” (TNT, 4-3).

With the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to allow virtually unlimited campaign donations by the rich, this nation officially pronounced itself an oligarchy. Now we have a government owned and operated by a few private citizens whose corporations the court regards as “persons,” whose money the court regards as “speech.” We have lost our democracy.

These elites and their congressional shills aim to dismantle the progressive reforms of both Roosevelts, Kennedy and Johnson civil rights legislation, and the Great Society programs. They turn both working and middle classes into

Read more »

April
3rd

ELECTIONS: Public funding of campaigns important

There is an old statement: “Things have to get worse before they can get better.” Perhaps this could be the outcome of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to increase the amount of money a citizen can give to candidates running for federal office.

For example, in the past a wealthy donor could give only $5,200 to an individual candidate up to a total of $48,600 (nine candidates). Now the total allowed is $2,433,600. How much can a middle-class and poor person give? Perhaps at the most a higher-middle-class person could give just one $5,000 donation to one candidate.

Who ends

Read more »

Oct.
2nd

OBAMACARE: House GOP needs a civics lesson

In middle school, I learned that when a bill passes the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, and is signed by the president, it becomes law. The legality of the law under the Constitution can be challenged, but if the Supreme Court votes to support that law, then that’s it.

Obamacare was passed by Congress, signed by the president and affirmed by the Supreme Court. If Republicans don’t like the law, then they can overturn it by creating a “no health care” bill and going through the same process. Instead, they refuse to fund the entire U.S. government unless

Read more »

July
2nd

VOTING: Court makes disenfranchisement easier

It appears that many Republicans in the U.S. Senate realize they can’t win the presidency without votes from the growing Latino minority, so to their credit they passed a bipartisan immigration bill 68 to 32.

Exit to the Supreme Court, where much to the astonishment of civil rights veterans like Congressman John Lewis key provisions of the Voting Rights Act were dismantled. Republicans love this because now in states like Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and others they can pass bills requiring voter ID., which could throw millions of Latino, minority and senior voters off the rolls.

Texas already had a

Read more »

July
2nd

MARRIAGE: Justices on both sides got it wrong

The majority of the Supreme Court justices said the federal government had to recognize the legitimacy of gay marriages for the purpose of assigning federal benefits. The dissent argued the matter should be left to the political process at the state level: state legislatures or the people through the initiative process. Both are wrong.

Abraham Lincoln once observed, regarding slavery, that it is either right or wrong; if wrong, which he believed it was, it could not be made right by a court, a Congress, a state or the people.

Gay marriage is wrong by nature, and cannot be made

Read more »

June
28th

MARRIAGE: Court errs with decisions

The Supreme Court erred in its recent “same-sex” marriage decisions. It failed to consider principles that are more fundamental, namely: the “right of association” and the “right to define the particular conduct of associates.”

For instance, heterosexual couples, many milieus ago, defined their unique relationship as “the union of one man and one woman” and named it “marriage.” All cultures maintained this definition sacrosanct since time immemorial.

Persons in other forms of relationships adopted different names: partners, civil unions, Apaches, Masons, Elks, Mormons. No one ever thought of forming a new association (legal, cultural, commercial, religious, tribal or otherwise) and

Read more »