Reviews | A decision of the readers: “Shame” on the Court

For the editor:

When I practiced law, I always believed that the Supreme Court, as the highest court in the land, provided a safety net to protect the fundamental rights of the poor and oppressed in our society.

Many recent Court opinions have turned the safety net into a noose, suffocating the lives of women’s rights, minorities, etc.

The court’s ultra-conservative judges flout the rule of law to serve their political agenda. Shame on them. The American people deserve better.

Shel Seligsohn
philadelphia cream

For the editor:

In choosing among the expressed goals of the Constitution, the Supreme Court majority consistently rejects public welfare and undoes a more perfect union, all in the name of the blessings of (lawless) freedom.

Douglas McIlroy
Etna, New Hampshire

For the editor:

Please don’t call conservative Supreme Court activists.

Conservatives play by the rules by which government operates. They respect precedents. They tackle the problems that come their way, rather than making excuses for drastic change. They don’t pretend to Congress. They do not hide their past actions.

They have the integrity not to take anything of value (a field seat) that they know has been stolen. They recuse themselves if necessary.

They are not conservatives. They are reactionaries.

Chava Casper
Teaneck, New Jersey

For the editor:

That the Supreme Court is made up of lawyers is bad enough, but last month the court’s conservative majority flaunted its astonishing expertise as historians, linguists, obstetricians and climatologists. With each decision, they assume a new profession.

Chief Justice John Roberts once said: “It’s my job to call balls and strikes, not throw or hit.” But is there an arena left that he and his universally expert colleagues haven’t inserted as a batter as well as an umpire, as a player and coach as well as an umpire?

Aaron Goode
New Haven, Conn.

For the editor:

Regarding “Young women who fight against the right to abortion” (front page, July 3):

As a high-risk labor and delivery nurse, I found the views expressed by these young women deeply disturbing. Even healthy young people risk morbidity and mortality as a direct result of pregnancy. Forcing people to have unwanted pregnancies, even with emotional and financial support, is traumatic; To cause them to lose their lives and livelihoods due to the complications of unintended childbirth is inhumane.

There is no feminist view that includes forcing a person to suffer permanent organ damage, disability, or death. I have seen women die on operating theater tables and in delivery rooms. And others will die because of the actions of anti-abortion activist Kristin Turner and people like her.

Meghan Thompson Wilda

For the editor:

Oh these young women who afford the luxury of being anti-choice, even anti-contraception. They did not live in the times before. They did not fight for the right to control their own bodies. They didn’t escort the women through the screaming crowds into the clinics.

And their optimism that the country will somehow provide resources to women forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term! Wow. Well, I hope they don’t learn the hard way what it’s like to have your fertility out of control. But I’m afraid they will.

Anne Broc
Brush Meadow, Wash.

For the editor:

Regarding “Living in Fear of a Concealed Gun”, by Patti Davis (Opinion guest essay, July 6):

Thank you, Patti, for your words. I am an American who is sickened by the violence our nation routinely experiences. We have normalized it, and our political leaders can only send “thoughts and prayers” to the families of the victims.

What’s wrong with us as a people that we can’t ban AR-15s? The framers of the Constitution never had this weapon in mind to defend themselves.

I applaud everyone who has worked tirelessly after Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland – the list goes on. I am an ordinary citizen who wants to do more to ban this weapon of mass destruction. I’m on your team, Patti! Tell me how I can do more.

Carol Josefowicz
Fenville, Mich.

For the editor:

Re “Compiling a dictionary is hard Yakka… Uh, work” (news article, June 20):

Documentation of Australian slang is a “ridgy-didge” (honest) attempt, but it’s probably too late. Some of the rural areas may still occasionally use colloquialisms, but most suburban areas are now too multicultural for their use and they are now heard mostly on Australian soap operas.

What we face today is not only the loss of these expressions but also the “Americanization” of our language and our accent due to our television viewing, the main transgression being the pronunciation of Z ranging from “zed” to “zee”. ”

Language is becoming more universal and accents are fading, and if we all communicate more, it should be a better world.

Denis Fitzgerald
Melbourne, Australia
The writer is a retired teacher.

Comments are closed.