O’Connor Withdraws, the Battle Looms
“If Ax Falls on Roe, It May Also Split GOP” (news analysis, July 4) highlights, in my mind, two major political issues. The first is that abortion is not a political issue. The second is that abortion should not define the basis upon which the next justice of the Supreme Court is selected. The bottom line here is the only thing that will happen if Roe is overturned is that rich women will still be able to get safe abortions, and poor women will go back to being able to get only unsafe and life-threatening abortions.
Women will not stop getting abortions. How about getting back to governance rather than interference with the private lives of citizens?
Joanne Polvy Cohen
Sherman Oaks
*
For some time the Supreme Court has been making decisions that are often questionable and sometimes flat-out wrong. The justices are there to serve the people, but “liberty and justice for all” is as hard to come by as a one-on-one interview with Santa or the Tooth Fairy.
Instead of losing sleep over who President Bush will choose to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, we should be examining the awesome power the court of so few has over the lives of so many.
Sheila Fenton
West Hollywood
*
Because of O’Connor’s “swing” vote cast in December 2000, we are now having an unnecessary, costly and endless war in Iraq, a huge budget deficit, a polarized nation. I hope the justice will reflect on all these in her retirement and maybe regret that crucial decision.
Watana Charoenrath
Agoura Hills
*
Goodbye, Justice O’Connor. Goodbye, Roe vs. Wade. Goodbye, separation of church and state. Goodbye, civil liberties.
Darcy Vernier
Marina del Rey
*
Re “ ... a Challenge for Bush,” editorial, July 2: Kudos to The Times for sticking by its position as defined in a previous editorial, advocating to “nuke the filibuster.” Right. Bush can rightly expect the Senate to fulfill its responsibility of “advise and consent.” But he is entitled to an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate, or as the editorialist opines, “a yes or no on his nominee. In other words, no filibusters.”
William H. Smith
Palm Desert
*
Your editorial is correct that filibusters are insults to democracy. But so are Bush’s bogus 2000 election, his interpretation of the 2004 election as a “mandate” and the demagogic way Bush/Republicans have since warred, campaigned and governed, and the basic setup of the Senate, where the Democratic senators represent more people than the Republicans.
Mike Goldberg
Perryville, Md.