Sandra Bierman: Roe v. Wade: Party politics have replaced reason, justice
In 2014, the Supreme Court made corporations human beings to enable big business to legally donate to (buy) U.S. politicians with unlimited campaign funding.
Now, the court has supported a minority religious belief that all human fertilized eggs are human beings from inception.
What about fertilized eggs in lab petri dishes for IVF procedures — will there be manslaughter trials when some of those fertilized seeds do not survive to be planted in a womb?
Reason and justice have gone out the window in favor of party politics. What’s next?
Chris Jessen: Roe v. Wade: State-mandated birth should come with state-mandated support
Since having my first post-Roe encounter be with a despairing neighbor shouting gut-wrenching evening expletives at her America, I have slept on it and awoken to fresh ideas in the face of our cataclysmic destiny as a broken nation. Honestly, I have more concern, not to mention business for caring, for the wild sprouting Norwegian Spruce in my front yard than I do for an unwanted fetus inside a fraught and desperate woman, destined almost certainly to a precarious life of burden, hunger, squalor and the ubiquitous violence awaiting a poor, desperate American in the coming future. I’m certain we all have better utility in our hearts and minds than to force fossilized religious zealotry on our neighbors or mere strangers tending by necessity to their own private business.
If this must be the verdict for all of America by six members of the Federalist Society, then my answer is this: The father of that child is conscripted to support to the mother and child until that child is self-sufficient. If the mother says, “there he is,” and that’s it. Denial, inability or incapacity can only mean full support from the state government who has forced this burden upon her. I submit that if the Supreme Court can give permission to state mandated birth, then the federal legislature can force the hand of state support. Such funding shall derive solely from State funds, mandated by raising of taxes on those hapless people living under that oppressive regime devoted to idols and relics of a bygone society.
I call on all Democratic senators and representatives to bring forth this challenge now. I dare Republicans to refuse. I dare the cabal of detached and callous justices to reveal their hypocrisy.
Robert Rothe: Supreme Court: Our Founding Fathers didn’t anticipate this court
It is time to reconsider the structure of the Supreme Court of the United States. When the Constitution was written two-and-a-half centuries ago, people didn’t live as long as they do now. Our Founding Fathers did not anticipate how far from public opinion any gathering of nine people could fall.
If the Supreme Court were required to face a public vote-of-confidence at election time with some minimal percentage of votes allowed to unseat a member, the American public could regain some say in important matters.
“We the people” pertains to many millions of Americans — not to an elite nine. Let’s start the ball rolling to restructure the Supreme Court.
John Wilkens: Supreme Court: Democrats need to pull a Mitch McConnell
In light of the Supreme Court’s gutting of Roe, Democrats need to ask themselves WWMMD? (What Would Mitch McConnell Do?). If faced with a 6-3 majority obliterating a cherished conservative precedent, stalwart partisan Mitch McConnell would manipulate any and all methods to obtain his party’s desired result.
The Constitution is silent on the number of judges on the court. Rather than increase its size, Democrats should pull a Mitch McConnell and solve several problems by reducing the court’s size to six (there’s no rule an odd number is required). While Justice Breyer delays his retirement until a restructuring is complete, the filibuster for Supreme Court legislation is eliminated and, using a last in, first out provision, the lifetime appointments of the three justices installed by McConnell and Trump are eliminated.
The resulting six member court would actually be more in line with what is expected of a body deciding ultimate legal precedents. Neither liberal nor conservative majorities would dominate, forcing a level of compromise necessary to deliver balanced opinions about the law and important cultural issues. Additionally, if three seats were guaranteed to be filled by conservatives and three by liberals, confirmation hearings would lose their rancor.
Conservatives have mounted a successful decades-long project to gain an unassailable majority on the court in order to circumvent their inability to pass unpopular legislation. Democrats need to pull a Mitch McConnell in order to preserve rights that are supported by an overwhelming majority of the public. Would they be so bold?
Dennis Berry: Environment: Climate action needs political will
I appreciate Bob Greenlee’s concern about climate change in the June 23 edition of the Camera, and his listing of a variety of expensive, experimental and unproven ideas with long lead times put forward by a bunch of rich guys who think that technology can solve every problem. But if we really want to make a meaningful dent in atmospheric CO2 and methane in the foreseeable future, we can do it without the expensive contraptions. All we need is political will. Implement a cap and trade regimen on carbon, and invest heavily in already existing, proven renewable solar and wind energy. The sparkly things are just deflection to divert attention from the source — fossil fuels — and keep the oil, coal, and gas companies in business.