To the Editor:
When I practiced law, I always believed that the Supreme Court, as the highest court in the land, provided a safety net to protect the basic rights of the poor and the downtrodden in our society.
Many of the recent opinions of the court have turned the safety net into a noose, choking the life out of the rights of women, minorities, etc.
The ultraconservative justices on the court make a mockery of the rule of law to serve their political agenda. Shame on them. The American people deserve better.
Shel Seligsohn
Philadelphia
To the Editor:
Picking and choosing among the expressed purposes of the Constitution, the Supreme Court majority consistently dismisses the public welfare and undoes a more perfect union, all in the name of the blessings of (anarchic) liberty.
Douglas McIlroy
Etna, N.H.
To the Editor:
Please don’t call the activist members of Supreme Court conservatives.
Conservatives respect the rules by which government works. They respect precedent. They address issues that come to them, rather than finding excuses for radical change. They don’t dissemble to Congress. They don’t hide their past actions.
They have the integrity not to take something of value (a seat on the court) that they know was stolen. They recuse themselves when appropriate.
These are not conservatives. They are reactionaries.
Chava Casper
Teaneck, N.J.
To the Editor:
That the Supreme Court consists of lawyers is bad enough, but in the last month the court’s conservative majority has flaunted its astounding expertise as historians, linguists, obstetricians and climatologists. With every ruling they assume a new profession.
Chief Justice John Roberts once famously said, “It’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.” But is there any arena left in which he and his universally expert colleagues have not inserted themselves as hitter as well as umpire, as player and coach as much as referee?
Aaron Goode
New Haven, Conn.
‘Disturbing’ Views of Young Anti-Abortion Activists
To the Editor:
Re “The Young Women Who Fight Abortion Rights” (front page, July 3):
As a high-risk labor and delivery nurse, I found the views expressed by these young women to be deeply disturbing. Even healthy young people risk morbidity and mortality as a direct result of pregnancy. To force people to carry unwanted pregnancies, even with emotional and financial support, is traumatic; to make them lose their lives and livelihoods because of complications of involuntary childbirth is inhumane.
There is no feminist perspective that includes forcing a person to endure permanent organ damage, disability or death. I have seen women die on operating room tables and in birthing suites. And more will die because of the actions of Kristin Turner, an anti-abortion activist, and people like her.
Meghan Thompson-Wilda
Chicago
To the Editor:
Oh these young women who have the luxury to be anti-choice, even anti-contraception. They didn’t live in the before times. They didn’t battle for the right to control our own bodies. They didn’t escort women through the yelling mob at clinics.
And their optimism that somehow the country will provide resources for women forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term! Wow. Well, I hope they don’t learn the hard way what it’s like to not have control over one’s fertility. But I fear they will.
Anne Brock
Brush Prairie, Wash.
We Need to Ban AR-15s. What Can I Do?
To the Editor:
Re “Living in Fear of a Concealed Gun,” by Patti Davis (Opinion guest essay, July 6):
Thank you, Patti, for your words. I am an American who is sickened by the violence that our nation experiences on a routine basis. We have normalized it, and our political leaders can only send out “thoughts and prayers” to the victim’s families.
What is wrong with us as a people that we can’t ban AR-15s? Writers of the Constitution never had this weapon in mind for self-defense.
I applaud all who have worked tirelessly after Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland — the list goes on. I am an ordinary citizen who wants to do more to ban this weapon of mass destruction. I am on your team, Patti! Tell me how I can do more.
Carol Josefowicz
Fennville, Mich.
Losing Australian Slang
To the Editor:
Re “Compiling a Dictionary Is Hard Yakka … Er, Work” (news article, June 20):
The documentation of Australian slang is a “ridgy-didge” (honest) attempt, but it’s probably too late. Some of the rural areas may still use colloquialisms occasionally, but most suburban areas are now too multicultural for their use and they are now heard mainly on Australian soap operas.
What we are now facing is not just the loss of these expressions but also the “Americanization” of our language and accent as a result of our TV viewing, with the main transgression being the pronunciation of Z going from “zed” to “zee.”
Language is becoming more universal and accents are blurring, and if we all communicate more it should be a better world.
Dennis Fitzgerald
Melbourne, Australia
The writer is a retired teacher.
