To the editor: Jonah Goldberg calls out the president for his supposed hypocrisy about the causes of Washington's polarization. Then he asks the president to make nice by not appointing a new justice. However, he reminds us that the president has the absolute right to appoint a new justice. ("Obama wants to reduce 'meanness'? Justice Scalia's death gives him that chance," Opinion, Feb. 16)
Finally, he details the Democrats' push-back to Republican nominees.
So, what's the point of this piece? No new insights or theories. Same rhetoric, different package. Too bad. All us non-extremist Americans are longing for a new path to constructive governance in a crazy world.
Evelyn Baran, Beverly Hills
To the editor: If Goldberg had any real interest in reducing meanness and polarization in our politics, he would not cast aspersions on a president who recently reflected on his own role in just that problem. He would not opine that a sitting president should stop carrying out his Constitutional duties, such as appointing a justice to the Supreme Court, or let a remark made by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) about blocking any nominee go by without comment.
Goldberg writes about "conservative ears," but where is the gray matter between the ears that could be used to reflect and filter? It is frustrating and outrageous, not to mention exemplary of hypocrisy, that Goldberg does not seem to recognize his own role in perpetuating meanness and polarization.
Cynthia Johnson-George, Los Angeles
To the editor: Says Goldberg: "Republicans … erred when they implied that Obama shouldn't name a replacement for Scalia. The president has every right to do so. And the Senate has every right to withhold its consent."
Wrong. The president has an obligation to nominate a replacement, and the Senate has an obligation to consider the appointment and vote. Funny how the use of one word displays a writer's true intent.
Dennis G. Cosso, Arcadia