Presidential power is a surrogate issue in Alito hearings
Letters to the EditorPublished January 13, 2006
Re: The Alito hearings, editorial, Jan. 9.
While your editorial is correct if you maintain that Roe vs. Wade should not be the only issue involved in Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation, it is pretty transparent that "presidential powers" is just a surrogate issue that the left is touting because it equates it with the Bush administration. Had a judge with Alito's views come up for confirmation during the tenure of a Democrat president like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman or Lyndon Johnson you would be saying that expanding the power of the executive is a fine thing and that opponents of it are reactionaries.
As for abortion, people like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., can't have it both ways. If the American people are so much in favor of abortion, then why fear an overturning of Roe vs. Wade? At the time Roe was decided, several states had already liberalized their abortion laws.
If the courts returned the issue back to the states, then one would expect that most states would continue such a policy. Getting rid of Roe vs. Wade would simply put the issue back in the state legislatures where it belongs.
-- Leonard Martino, Tampa
Abortion issue is a smokescreen
Re: Samuel Alito nomination.
The real issue in the Alito nomination is not abortion. Abortion is a smokescreen this administration is placing over the true nature of this nomination, which is the granting of unilateral power to the presidency.
With Alito on the court, the neocon Republicans will have attained a major coup. Then they can go about destroying the Constitution with impunity and granting the president absolute power.
I wonder how long true, honest to God Republicans could handle living under such a regime before they decide to take their party back?
Our Founding Fathers must be turning in their graves.
-- Carlos Milan, St. Petersburg
Environment could be at risk
Re: The Alito hearings, editorial.
Judge Samuel Alito's lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court could harm Florida's waterways and beaches. You note that he aligns himself with those "who would put sharp limits on the ability of Congress to enact . . . environmental protection rules." The Supreme Court is now hearing two cases that could significantly narrow protection for Florida's rivers, streams and wetlands. Judge Alito has voted to block the enforcement of the Clean Water Act and other laws.
Floridians know that clean water is vital to our economy and lives. Florida Sens. Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez ought to protect our waters by opposing Judge Alito.
-- Darden Rice, regional representative, Sierra Club, St. Petersburg
Alito deserves support
Judge Samuel Alito is right for everyone. His opinions have been fair, reasonable and attentive to the law and his general approach to the law of the land places him squarely within the mainstream of America.
Help protect our country from the agenda of left-leaning special interest groups. Contact your senators today and urge them to support the nomination of Judge Alito as the next justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
-- Jan Burdeno, Brandon
Democrats' inconsistency
Re: "Roe" is a gift to Republicans, Jan. 7.
The main reason why the Democrats should abandon their commitment to Roe vs. Wade is neither tactical nor strategic: It is ideological consistency! The Democratic claim to be a "voice for the voiceless" is negated by the party's support for the destruction of the unborn, who are the most voiceless of all human beings.
This open season on the unborn is justified with a blatant lie: that the beginning of life is a matter of religious belief. Modern science has established as a fact that what we call biological life is the ongoing decompression of a unique file encoded in the genome of each individual, and consequently that life begins with fertilization. To claim otherwise is as self-serving as was the denial of the planetary system by biblical scholars in the 1500s!
Worst of all, the Democratic devotion to Roe states that destruction of human life is a solution to social and emotional problems.
-- Lodovico Balducci M.D., professor of oncology and medicine, University of South Florida Collegeof Medicine, Tampa
We need action on energy
Re: The biggest threat to our way of life isn't Islamism, it's petrolism, Jan. 9.
Thomas Friedman's column should be a call to arms for all of us. Every time I fill up my tank, I get sick thinking of my money going to: Saudi princes, Russian thugs and the Venezuelan government.
Impose a floating rate gas tax, set up a trust fund like the 1950s highway fund to spend the money on technology, infrastructure, research or whatever else is needed. Give an energy tax credit only to low-income individuals.
I don't care whether the politician is Republican or Democrat. We need action!
-- Dale Krumreich, Pinellas Park
Sound fiscal policy
Re: Tampa water fees deserved debate, letter, Jan. 10.
I applaud Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio for her decision to impose the new water impact fee. Even her critics concede this decision makes perfect sense. Perhaps some are threatened by her approach, but I find it refreshing. This is not the mayor who made the deal which left the city paying for a large chunk of Centro Ybor. This is not the mayor who promised funding for the Cancer Survivor's Park, and then left it unfinished for the next administration.
Sound fiscal policy from the mayor's office may ruffle a few feathers in this town, but I think it's long overdue.
-- Doug Rhea, Tampa
Who can afford to retire?
I noted your Jan. 5 article U.S. not ready for a labor shortage, regarding the news conference held by Thomas Donohue, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce president and chief executive officer. Donohue stated that "the country is ill-prepared to deal with the impending retirement of 77-million baby boomers."
I think someone needs to tell him to stop worrying. If the present administration in Washington and all the corporations that they cater to continue on the path they have chosen, then those baby boomers will be working until they pass away. The majority of us need to keep working as long as we can in order to survive. We are not about to give up our jobs when we reach age 62 to 65. I would bet that most of the upcoming baby boomers will not either.
In my opinion, Donohue would be doing the nation a service if he advised the administration and his business and corporate associates to create more jobs for the many millions who are out of work today, and who may be unemployed for a very long time. He should also advise them to begin to return to the days of traditional pension plans instead of 401(k) plans and to restore medical benefits so that we can all truly retire. Perhaps then we can establish a "guest worker program" and develop "an adequate supply of working taxpayers" as he suggests that we do.
-- Nick Kayafas, Largo