Letters to the Editor for Sunday, September 20, 2009

Judicial activism, but from the right
We just finished celebrating Constitution Week but the “right wing gang” on the Supreme Court is about to tarnish it again. The Constitution says “We the people ...”, not “We the corporations ... .”

Click to send

The McCain-Feingold law bars corporations (and unions) from financing electioneering messages within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. The issue before the court is the conservative Citizens United organization’s attempt to use “Hillary — the Movie” in the last presidential election. The Federal Election Commission rightly ruled against it as equivalent to an attack ad. This decision doesn’t imperil newspaper or TV free speech, since they are exempt from McCain-Feingold.

In June, the radical Roberts Court issued an obscure order to reargue this case that will enthrone corporate speech over the vox populi. They tipped their hand when they also took the very rare step of reopening two previous related cases that had already been decided. It is apparent that the “right wing gang” wants to open the floodgates to allow corporate entities to drown our democracy with their vast unmatched reservoir of dollars. Paying big money for “free speech” is a real paradox and a real threat to our elections.

To those who think corporations should be allowed to play by the same money rules as people, would you agree to a pro football team playing a high school team? They play essentially by the same rules but there are obvious essential differences and so it is with corporations. Why should big-monied non-person corporations be allowed to impose their rule on “we the people”? Their executives and employees have “free speech” rights so why do corporations need them also? The Constitution makes no mention of corporations and creates no corporate rights. It is a document about people’s rights.

So only liberal judges are activists? These Republican-appointed, unelected ideologues are the real poster boys for runaway judicial activism. They intend to complete their work in time for the next election. Regardless of the party you favor, this infringes on all our Constitutional rights. But guess which party this favors?
DAVID McLOUGHLIN
Forest

Public ignorance
Call me uninformed but it seems that the title of the Dilbert book by Scott Addams, “When did Ignorance Become a Point of View?”, best describes the brouhaha around the health care reform issue.

Watching this game of political football as an observer at the far end of the bleachers, with neither knowledge of the rules nor as a supporter of either team, all that I could see and hear did not make much sense.

The pigskin called the America’s Affordable Health Choice act of 2009 was being kicked and hurled from players to fans and back while cries of “socialist,” “AstroTurf,” “Nazi,” “death panels,” “ignorant” and “terrorist” could be heard above the thunderous noise.

Since the action was beyond my scope of comprehension, I decided to leave the arena and go to the local public library to learn the rules of the game.

No copy of HR 3200 (passed by the House on July 2009) was available at the Lynchburg library system, the librarian said that they would try getting a copy from a repository library (such as the Government Printing Office) or such, she also told me that no patrons had asked to see the bill as of Aug. 26.

Since apparently not one of the 72,596 residents of Lynchburg (U.S. Census Bureau, July 2008) had requested the HR 3200 (1,018 pages), I have to conclude that I am not the only one uneducated about the facts or the rules of the game and maybe all the shouting and yelling is the result of collective ignorance.
JULIO UCHIMURA
Lynchburg