What stolen seats?
In response to “Roe’s impending reversal is a 9/11 attack on America’s social fabric” (Sunday): Dana Milbank’s latest pro-abortion rant, in addition to invoking the absurd hyperbole of the possible Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade reversal decision as a terrorist attack (9/11 no less!) “on America’s social fabric,” is a reckless assault on the integrity of the court. Consider this closing statement: “But it took years (and a stolen seat or two) to build this destructive Supreme Court.” Where did this scurrilous charge originate? Which seats were stolen? Who did they belong to, who stole them, and by what means were they purloined?
It is the pinnacle of left-wing arrogance that they think they are entitled to a certain number of seats (or all of them) on the Supreme Court, which is belied by their continual threat to pack or expand the court as needed. But the simple reason they need a liberal majority is so that activist judges can hand them the legal rulings and precedents that their schemes could never achieve at the ballot box. The pending ruling, if in agreement with the leaked draft, will simply return the issue to state legislatures where it belongs. And let’s hope “the building backlash” he laments does not include actual violence against certain judges, pro-life institutions or facilities, which is another favored course of action when the left doesn’t get its way. You’ve certainly seen plenty of examples in the last several years. Will we be a nation of laws or mob rule?
A seed for thought
I know it is extremely naïve to believe that this could even happen, but I’m going to say it anyway. I believe it would be in the best interests of our society to repeal the Second Amendment. Since it is unrealistic to expect that such an action could occur, at least allow me to plant a seed for thought. Attitudes can be changed through thoughtful consideration. Repeal of the Second Amendment would not take away anybody’s right to own a gun. It would simply allow the freedom to think and act differently.
Speaking out on extremism on all sides
I am a white male. I am divorced and happily remarried. I am an Evangelical, because I believe in Jesus Christ and the Grace He offers us through His death and resurrection. I have an LBGTQ step-daughter and a step granddaughter of Mexican-American heritage, both of whom I love and am proud to call part of my family.
If you are still reading, I commend you, because you are inclined to search for common ground. I fear for our country, because too many of our leaders and fellow citizens prefer to focus on what divides. Too many on both sides prefer to take the easy way out and write off those they disagree with, rather than do the hard and rewarding work of finding common cause. Common cause is still out there for those who truly love our country as it is: big, complex, generous, wonderfully diverse, fierce when needed.
Are you a politician who uses the rhetoric of war? Do you describe opponents as evil or enemy? Do you vote for politicians who use that language? I am talking about you. You do not love America, you only want to recreate it in your own image.
The time has nearly passed for those of us willing and able to love America as it is to have our own voice. Speak out against the extremists on both sides of the political divide. If we don’t, those advocating violence to achieve political aims eventually us.
Formula shortage fix?
I’m not a chemist nor do I know much about mass production. But pharmacists are sometimes known as compounders, making their own in-house pharmaceuticals and medicines.
Is it possible for local pharmacists to create baby formula batches using Abbott’s recipe? If so, nationalize the recipe and give it to pharmacies for production, or provide it with a nondisclosure agreement. It would beat having to fly in formula from Europe or waiting until July for Abbott’s goods to show up in stores.