Letters on John Roberts, political justices, destroying America, ACA Don Quixote, Brownback denial

How can Roberts rule so differently?

Is Chief Justice John Roberts on the threshold of dementia? In his dissent from the majority opinion that now forces all states to license same-sex marriages, he said: “This court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.”

Yet just the day before in his majority opinion that rewrote the Obamacare law, he and five other lawyers became very much a part of the legislature.

In the same-sex marriage dissent he stated that five lawyers had ordered states to change their laws, asking, “Just who do we think we are?” Only 24 hours earlier he acted completely the opposite.

How can he treat federalism that runs the same in both cases so completely differently, and yet not be considered a mere politician? If the U.S. Supreme Court is to act as a legislature to rewrite laws that further the authoritarian reaches of a president, then arguments for the nine justices to stand for general election should begin to be advanced.

If there remains any desire to keep the republic going and authoritarians at bay, it is time for a convention of states.

Not apolitical?

A letter writer supports the case that Supreme Court justices are meant to be independent, meaning not elected – as some disgruntled critics seem to prefer (“Independent court,” June 28 Letters to the Editor). But the writer further stated that those justices are “meant to be independent legal minds who are above politics.”

If so, then there must be something wrong with the way the Supreme Court has evolved into a body selected by presidents of both parties for their political persuasions. Those persuasions are so obvious that a high school student can tell which party and political philosophy any justice favors – and we can all judge with pretty good accuracy what the balance will be on any given case they undertake. Can they be as political as this and still be considered independent?

As a nation, we seem to have lost our way, as that way is prescribed by the Constitution.

Out to destroy

Now, right here in America, we have some of our own citizens saying that they would like to shrink our government down to the size where they can drown it in a bathtub.

Now, right here in America, we have Supreme Court justices saying that it is OK for rich citizens and corporations to buy politicians and elected officials.

Now, right here in America, we have a federal legislature that is willing to shut down the government for “ideological” reasons.

Now, right here in America, we have governors and state legislators who have severely weakened the economies of their own states by severely cutting revenue without cutting spending. And who force their ideology on citizens even when the majority of citizens do not agree with their ideology.

You can hear the dirt hitting the coffin, but it isn’t coming from left-wing liberals or socialists. The shovels are being manned by far-right conservatives, who are trying not to bury our government but to drown it.

ACA Quixote

I will not vote for any presidential candidate who persists on promising to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

In spite of all the dollars wasted, 58 failed attempts to void it, and the fact that it is in place and working, Republicans are obsessed with the repeal of “Obamacare.” They would replace it with a “better plan.”

They have had 40 years to come up with a better plan, and they have produced nothing. What would it take, in time and money, to tear down this plan and build a new one? And what would we use in the meantime?

How much time and money were wasted in the past few years “tilting at windmills” to no avail? And how many good ideas were not tried to make an “imperfect” plan better? Why didn’t they all try to make it better, instead of trying so hard to make it dead?

I know why, and so do they.

Break from reality

Regarding The Eagle editorial about Gov. Sam Brownback being in denial about the tax increases (June 18 Opinion): There is a mental health term that best describes it – psychotic break. The definition is that a person “has a break from reality and often involves seeing, hearing and believing things that aren’t real.”

That certainly describes his perception of the budget crisis.

Assuming he has better access to mental health care than all of the disadvantaged to whom he denied Medicaid, perhaps Brownback should consult his mental health professional for treatment. Psychotherapy and appropriate medication can often alleviate this condition.

As for economist Arthur Laffer, he is not delusional. He just happens to be a skilled huckster. Like any other snake-oil salesman, he is in the business of selling fantasy cures to the uninformed who are in search of a magic potion to make their problems disappear. It’s unfortunate he was able to dupe Brownback and bilk Kansas out of $75,000.

It’s too bad that Laffer’s fee was not performance-based, linked to an objective criterion that demonstrated his advice was effective.

This story was originally published July 2, 2015 at 7:06 PM with the headline "Letters on John Roberts, political justices, destroying America, ACA Don Quixote, Brownback denial."