Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

Tag: U.S. Supreme Court

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.

Aug.
8th

MEDALS: Don’t politicians profit from lying?

Re: “Military can catalog WWI bombs but not medals?” (editorial, 8-6).

Although I do not advocate lying under any circumstances, I have to agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision that lying about receiving military awards is protected free speech. I believe there was a similar ruling a short time ago, with the court affirming the right of politicians to lie during political campaigns.

The editorial says there is an effort under way to make it illegal to profit from lying about military decorations. And who exactly will define what “profit” is? The politicians who habitually lie and

Read more »

May
17th

MARRIAGE: What counts as a popular support?

Apparently, news of Washington’s, not to mention New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire’s, protection of same-sex marriage by elected officials (as opposed to judges) has not reached the Georgia State University, or at least not columnist Eric Segall.

Segall (column, 5-17) argues that a U.S. Supreme Court decision protecting same-sex marriage will generate backlash – because same-sex marriage lacks popular support – but that Congressional action to protect same-sex marriage would not. He specifically states that “no state has protected same sex marriage by a vote of the people,” discounting completely votes to do just that by the state legislators

Read more »

April
10th

ELECTIONS: Public campaign financing is imperative

We applaud The News Tribune’s editorial warning that the 2010 Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court now threatens to hijack even judicial campaigns – along with this year’s elections – with super PAC spending.

We need public financing of campaigns at every level, including judicial campaigns at state levels where judges are elected. To roll back judicial decisions such as Citizens United that have authorized and empowered super PACs and the hijacking of our political process by great wealth, we need an aroused citizenry and a constitutional amendment. It may seem a daunting task to recapture democracy

Read more »

May
13th

COURT: Lack of diversity claims ring hollow

Re: Elana Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

Both Kathleen Parker and Patrick O’Callahan weigh in on Kagan’s “lack of diversity” (columns, 5-12). Parker notes that if Kagan is confirmed, all three women on the court would be New Yorkers (urban, sophisticated, Ivy League). O’Callahan writes that there would be no Protestant justices.

The Supremes were, until quite recently, white Protestants with a “designated” Jewish justice. No women or minorities need apply. But hasn’t the most recent hue and cry been for the “best” justice, diversity be damned? Especially from the right? It is a bit disingenuous to now complain

Read more »

May
10th

SUPREME COURT: Kagan might not be the best choice

Re: President Barack Obama’s choice of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace Justice John Paul Stevens.

All the present Supreme Court justices have served as a federal judges before being nominated to the nation’s highest court, but Kagan has not served in that capacity nor has she been a judge at all. It seems that Obama is more interested in placing someone on the bench who thinks like he does rather than selecting someone who is willing to apply the rule of law when making judicial decisions affecting the lives of millions of American citizens for generations.

While Kagan might

Read more »