Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

Tag: Supreme Court


MARRIAGE: Justice prevails with DOMA decision

I celebrate the affirmative decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and uphold the lower court’s decision about California’s Proposition 8. As a United Methodist Christian, I believe that every person has sacred worth and is due all of the services provided and rights protected by our churches and governments.

DOMA has been a source of grave injustice and has done untold harm by preventing millions from enjoying the full quality of life afforded the majority. DOMA’s negation by the court ends an era of unconscionable discrimination, opens the door to marriage

Read more »


MARRIAGE: Constitution lost in all the rhetoric

It is terribly depressing that lost in all of rhetoric surrounding same-sex marriage is the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court’s responsibility is to determine whether or not the laws in the cases before it are constitutional. To the contrary, what I see in the news is discussion of everything but that.

Justice Samuel Alito is quoted as saying that “same-sex marriage is very new.” What does the newness of same-sex marriage have to do with whether or not the laws before the court are constitutional?

Justice Anthony Kennedy is quoted talking about “uncharted waters.” Don’t most constitutional issues deal

Read more »


MARRIAGE: Supreme Court shouldn’t legislate

The U.S. Supreme Court will be “legislating” when hearing same-sex marriage cases this week. There is nothing in the Constitution permitting same-sex marriage.

Marriage, since time immemorial, has always been defined, practiced and recognized as the union of one man and one woman – in every nation, society and religion. Same-sex relationships are quite different from “traditional marriage” – physically, morally, legally, spiritually and in their essential ability to procreate our species.

No single group has a legal, moral or ethical right to appropriate another’s definition of its behavior and then apply that definition to its own different behavior or

Read more »


GUNS: Ultimate goal is civilian disarmament

By now we’re all aware our president is waging his own “reasonable” and “responsible” war on gun owners. Surrounded by children, he unveiled his plan to get the machinery in place for more gun control.

He tells us it’s just “military-style” guns. For now. Nothing average Joe Sportsman should worry about. We’re safer when they take away our liberties. It’s for “the children.”

Americans should wake up to this shameful attack on honest citizens by exploiting the latest tragedy to advance their gun-control agenda. President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Dianne Feinstein ultimately want to make the Second

Read more »


ELECTION: Best politicians that money can buy?

As Election Day approaches, some politicians are preparing to personally buy their election, a trend that has become increasingly popular in today’s political climate.

In an effort to remain competitive with Derek Kilmer, Bill Driscoll dumped another $500,000 into his campaign, which, amounts to a total of $1 million in personal spending in this race for the seat of retiring 6th District Congressman Norm Dicks. Driscoll’s campaign consultant, Alex Hays, stated that this action proves the seriousness of Driscoll’s campaign to PACs.

This trend demonstrates how the democratic process has been hijacked by money. The  Supreme Court decision in Citizens

Read more »


ELECTION: Where do candidates stand on the real issues?

I’ve read every word of every one of The News Tribune’s editorial endorsements of the candidates for every state and federal position, whether or not it pertains to my specific district. And I am disappointed.

Why? Because I’ve been looking, in vain I might add, for the candidates’ views on recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions (corporations as “persons,” unfettered donations by political action committees, women’s reproductive rights, equal pay, etc.) as well as immigration issues, Voter ID, repeal of all or part of the Affordable Care Act, etc. The list goes on.

In our area, it is evident that each

Read more »


HEALTH: Scholars’ opinions aren’t credible

Re: “Scholars on health care act: Legal, but . . .” (TNT, 6-23).

The article touting the opinions of legal scholars towards the constitutionality of President Obama’s national health care act lacked objectivity and credibility.

First of all, there is no evidence provided that the opinions of the 21 scholars cited in the story objectively represent legal scholarship about the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Once that fact is considered, the statements about not only the constitutionality of the law but also the political impacts of the court’s decision are suspect.

I was most troubled by the way

Read more »


MARRIAGE: Referendum 74 is unconstitutional

Now it has become clear to me that there are individuals in our lovely state that believe marriage is not a civil right. So to anyone thinking this it is time to realize that denying same-sex marriage couples the right to define their relationship as a marriage is unconstitutional. Here are a few examples of precedence set in place by the Supreme Court.

“We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man, marriage and procreation”
Justice William Douglas (Skinner v. Oklahoma)

“Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life,” “It

Read more »