Amy Coney Barrett has waived her right to sit on the United States Supreme Court over her convoluted response to the simple question about climate change.
The confirmation process is a sham in many ways. Because the outcome is predicted, it ceased to be a deliberative process on judicial philosophy. Senators turn every question into a political speech, and the candidate finds clever ways of saying nothing – in tribute to her mentor, Donald Trump.
When asked a clear “yes or no” scientific question about climate change, she should have jumped at the chance to give a clear answer – but she didn’t. She replied that it is a “very controversial public debate issue”. Established science is clear and visible evidence abounds – so she is either crudely in uniform or she lied.
SEND LETTERS TO: email@example.com. Please include your neighborhood or hometown and a phone number for verification. Letters must be 350 words or less.
Does she think antibiotics cure infections, or is this also a subject of “public debate”?
Some Republicans deny climate science because their supporters are in the fossil fuel industry; Trump laughs at Covid 19 because it hurts his chances of re-election, but that doesn’t change the facts. A basic requirement for a candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States would be the intelligence and reasoning power to base decisions on verifiable facts. According to her testimony, Ms. Barrett is not such a person; she is a political hacker who does not qualify to sit on the highest court.
Carol Kraines, Deerfield
Allay Trump’s Fears
To allay Donald Trump’s fears – declared at one of his still-maskless rallies as the country experiences the expected peak in COVID cases this fall – of possibly having to leave the country after losing to the “worst candidate of all time ”, I would offer him this: Do not worry, Mr President. Hillary survived.
Jim Koppensteiner, Niles
I read the article about the police who covered up the superintendent. Eddie Johnson the night he was discovered in his vehicle asleep driving at a stop sign. The two probation officers who did not follow police protocol were figuratively slapped on the wrist with each a one-day suspension. Other officers at the top of the chain received harsher sentences.
For all intents and purposes, justice has been served to everyone involved. In defense of the officers involved in the “cover-up”, I cannot imagine how difficult it was for the officers to be placed in the position they were placed in. We learn very early on to respect our bosses and their position. That being said, it’s understandable that they decided not to follow police protocol and administer field sobriety tests. I’m sure they were worried about their careers. No, they didn’t do the right thing but I understand and sympathize with their situation.
John Livaich, Oak Lawn