Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Bush's supporters expect a conservative court nominee

Re: Replacing O'Connor, editorial, July 2.

Your editorial about replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is a disservice to your readers.

President Bush is responsible for nominating people to the federal bench, including the Supreme Court. The advise-and-consent role of the Senate is a constitutional responsibility for the Senate to vote for or against approving the nominee. The only reason there has been any discussion of "consulting" with senators from both sides is that Senate Democrats have unconstitutionally stalled the up or down vote on judges called for in the Constitution, and this "consultation" is one of their conditions for allowing a simple majority vote of the entire Senate to take place.

Your paper, like Senate Democrats, considers anyone who believes it's morally repugnant for a woman to kill the unborn child in her womb too conservative to be a federal judge. Guess what? President Bush was elected by a significant majority of American voters, and the vast majority of the voters who elected him are among those you would feel are too conservative for the court. The president owes it to those who elected him to appoint a strict constructionist who believes life is precious, from conception to natural death.

Justice O'Connor was anything but moderate or conservative on social issues. She voted nearly every time the chance arose to grant special rights to homosexuals, to keep abortion available and to remove God from the public square.

Please say what you mean. You believe the president should nominate a justice who believes in abortion on demand, excluding God from public life and promoting the normalization of deviant sexual behavior. To pretend that your recommendations come from any other motivations is intellectually dishonest.

Keep reproductive rights central

The retirement of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dramatically changes the court's composition by removing a crucial moderate voice that has often been at the heart of protecting women's health and rights. Justice O'Connor's resignation puts women's health at risk. The future of reproductive rights in this nation, as defined in Roe vs. Wade in 1973, is in grave danger.

In 1992 in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, Justice O'Connor's recognition of the grievous harms that women would face if forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term led the court to reaffirm Roe vs. Wade as the law of the land. There is no doubt that her departure creates the very real likelihood that Roe's promise to women will be severely undermined, if not entirely taken away.

The high stakes confirmation process to replace Justice O'Connor deserves the most thoughtful and intelligent deliberation. The American people need a thorough and open debate before confirming a nominee to a lifetime appointment to our nation's highest court.

The president should nominate - and the Senate should confirm - only those nominees who will uphold the constitutional protections for women's health and safely. After all, reproductive rights are basic human rights.

It's not for Democrats to choose

Re: Replacing O'Connor, editorial.

I see you jumped in early to let your readers know that if President Bush doesn't turn the appointment of a new justice over to the Democrats, it will be a disgrace and an insult to the "mainstream" voters. Pardon me, but who were the voters who elected Bush as president twice?

It seems to me that the Senate's part in this would be a fair up or down vote by the full senate - not just the Democrats. For the president to consult with the Senate on his choice does not mean he should let them make the choice.

A test for court nominees

If ever there was a litmus test, this should be it. With Sandra Day O'Connor leaving the Supreme Court, the question to the nominees for her replacement is: Are you in agreement with the court's New Haven decision or do you accept and support the principle that "a man's home is his castle"?

A too-costly collision

Re: NASA to crash spacecraft into comet on July Fourth, July 3.

It seems strange to me that in these times when government money is short for necessary programs that NASA can find enough money to create a $333-million "firecracker" out in space.

I read every day about projects such as veterans care and others that will cost too much to provide.

I wonder what real good will come of this project for the taxpaying American.

An inappropriate focus for the Fourth

Re: Too much "fun"? July 4.

I'm no prude, but since when did the St. Petersburg Times change its format from news coverage to sensationalistic story coverage with a helping of sexual innuendo?

This was the last thing I expected to be run on the cover of the Times on Independence Day. With all that is going on in the world right now and how diluted or misled national patriotism happens to be, I would think the the Times could have found a much more appropriate story to run on the cover for the Fourth of July.

A timely cautionary tale

Re: Too much "fun"?

Tamara Lush's story about the local teenage girls and their drinking behavior was exceptional. It was especially timely, given the connections she made between the girls' trip to the Bahamas and Natalee Holloway's disappearance in Aruba.

As a middle school teacher and the mother of a just-turned-20-year-old (who has managed to make much better choices about drinking, thankfully), I worry about the dangers that young women expose themselves to. As the Holloway case illustrates, the volume of alcohol involved in these exploits - and the sexual behaviors accompanying them - can be a dangerous and even deadly combination.

The story also raises these questions: How many parents are reluctant to put limits on their teenagers and talk about the risks of binge drinking? And do kids really need to take these kinds of trips to the islands?

In retrospect

Re: Too much "fun"?

A note to 19-year-old Megan Prewitt: Please take this article about your "vacation" and put it away for 20 years. Then take it out and read it when your own daughter is getting ready to take a trip to the islands. Somehow, I think your attitude might have changed by that time.

[Last modified July 6, 2005, 00:49:15]