Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Senate rules changes should be discussed more honestly

Re: Fight for the courts, editorial, March 28.

I never cease to be amazed at the propensity of your newspaper to present a less than full, less than logical and less than honest picture in the interest of demagoguing about Republicans and their perspectives.

In your editorial, you paint a picture of Republicans and the president as intent on changing "long standing traditions and rules" so that their ideologically preferred judicial candidates might actually get an up or down vote in the Senate. Echoing the Senate Democrats, you refer to this proposed change as the "nuclear option" while ignoring the fact that the change merely returns the Senate rules to compatability with the Constitution.

You don't seem to think that court rulings on sodomy laws, the Pledge of Allegiance and abortions are ideologically based but their opposition is? You make not even a casual acknowledgement of the judicial activism that this country has experienced in the last 30 years.

It appears that you fear not that the upcoming Senate fight will cause the courts to become an ideological force but that the ideology of the judicial branch may no longer lean to the left as you prefer. I suspect that even those who disagree would have more respect for your position if it were presented in a honest, complete and consistent way instead of the pejorative and biased manner in which you chose to argue it.

Preserve checks and balances

I'm seriously concerned about the recent talk of restructuring the parliamentary procedures of the Senate in order to, in effect, create one-party rule in our country. The removal of the ability to filibuster is obviously an attempt to stack the courts with justices friendly to corporate interests. There is no need for this tactic since nearly 95 percent of nominees were confirmed last term with support of Senate Democrats.

We as a people will surely not benefit from policy that is strictly decided upon by profit. It is imperative that we keep intact the system of checks and balances that have been in existence for more than 200 years. Please contact our senators on this very serious option.

Seeking balance on the bench

Re: Fight for the courts.

This editorial is without doubt the most partisan, ideological one written by the Times in years. We now have an activist judiciary that has poisoned American lives for decades. Today the Republican Party leads the nation in the executive and legislative branches, giving the president the power to name conservatives to a bench that needs change.

So what do we get from the Times? "The upcoming fight in the Senate will . . . test the ability of the Democrats and a handful of moderate Republicans to prevent the courts from being turned into ideological force." Excuse me, we are already there and have been. President Bush is merely trying to balance the overwhelming liberal activist judges that are already on the bench.

Marching to one-party rule

For those of us who just want to see our government function the way it was designed to function, it's getting really scary out there.

To name a few nightmares: We've had to deal with the Supreme Court meddling in the 2000 election where it had no business being. We're currently witnessing in the Terri Schiavo misfortune an attempt to cancel out the checks and balances provided by the three branches of government. And now, Republicans are threatening to use what has been called the "nuclear option" - a parliamentary maneuver to overturn the long-standing right to filibuster judicial nominations. Oh goodie. One-party rule.

Regardless of a person's political stance, everyone should be very concerned that our system of government is being dangerously eroded by the powerful pressure of a radical minority to whom this administration is beholden. This has to stop!

A warning on government intrusion

Let's be clear about one thing: The Schiavo case is a warning that the GOP is hell-bent on intrusive government oversight into the most personal of decisions in our lives. It is a warning that these same self-serving pols have no respect for the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution and instead consider the judiciary "out of control" if it applies the law faithfully, but in variance to their agenda. It is a warning that the GOP is under tremendous political pressure to create a theocracy in the United States, one in which all decisions are refracted through the views of a narrow and vociferous religious minority. This religious minority has been the source of death threats against judges, Michael Schiavo, and his attorney - hardly a group dedicated to protecting life, it seems.

Finally it is a warning to all of us who prefer to make our own decisions, to have our own beliefs inform our moral compass, and want to make choices in our lives with dignity, privacy and control. Further GOP gains will only serve to lead to more intrusion, more imposition of so-called moral values, and less freedom over the fundamental life and death choices we face every day.

Puzzling contradiction

I read with dismay that Judge George Greer and his family have 24-hour police protection because of death threats due to his rulings in the Terri Schiavo case. I find it difficult to understand why those who are praying for Terri to live would harm or threaten to take the life of another human being. Is one life worth more than another?

What is happening to this country?

I find it very ironic that the United States is sending men and women to Iraq to stop the horror of torture and death of the Iraqi people. This country will not allow torture or violence committed against prisoners of war, yet we are doing it here at home. How hypocritical is that?

We have judges, lawyers and other people who are playing God and have made decisions to put an innocent, defenseless woman to death by starvation. What is happening in this country? Who is next? Who decides? Judges, lawyers? Have we lost all of our morals and compassion and become so desensitized that we feel we have earned the right to decide who lives and who dies? There are many people who truly believe they know what is best for everyone else. This is very sad.

Shame on everyone who has decided it is justifiable to starve Terri Schiavo to death. It is not Terri who is brain damaged, it is everyone else who has tried to justify this heinous act. God help us all!

One life vs. thousands

Life is very precious to all. I wonder why we argue so much for one and let thousands die in a controversial war.

[Last modified March 30, 2005, 01:03:17]