Letters Extra: Voting Rights Act ruling blinders

Memo to the clueless majority of the Supreme Court after its recent Voting Rights Act ruling: Racism still exists in this country.

Minorities had been protected by the law from the machinations of those determined to quash voting rights, but those protections are erased.

Some justices stated that the country is different than 1965. But in what way? The techniques of voter suppression are no longer poll taxes and literacy tests. Now, concentrated efforts are on moving polling places, gerrymandering, restricting early voting, and ID laws. The techniques may have changed, but the goal has not — to suppress minority votes.

The almost immediate action of the state of Texas, to take one example, to reinstate voter ID laws is proof positive that this decision (activist judges!) will result in a retrenchment of voting equality in the country.

This is a disgraceful decision and one which only highlights the privileged, aloof, position of the majority of the court.

James F. Davis, Gulph Mills

Rhetorical footwork doesn’t help
<NO1>verified<NO>Charles Krauthammer would get many more readers to learn that he favors carbon dioxide emission reduction if he could avoid the pointless hyperbole<NO1> we must plow through first <NO> (“A pointless climate agenda,” July 8). The economy stagnates. Really? If Krauthammer calls doubling market indexes and a 3 percent reduction in unemployment stagnant, then how can we believe the rest of his argument? Obama a “flat earther.” That sounds more like a description of a Texas tea-partier. Entire states impoverished … “billions … for new Solyndras.” Solyndra was a better example of a freak event than the Alaskan heat wave. “Global temperatures flat for 16 years” is a deliberate misuse of statistics. How about the last 10 years or the last 5 years? By the time I reached Krauthammer’s conclusion on carbon dioxide reduction, I could no longer believe anything he said.
Robert Cohen, RichCharles Krauthammer would get many more readers to learn that he favors carbon dioxide emission reduction if he could avoid the pointless hyperbole<NO1> we must plow through first <NO> (“A pointless climate agenda,” July 8). The economy stagnates. Really? If Krauthammer calls doubling market indexes and a 3 percent reduction in unemployment stagnant, then how can we believe the rest of his argument? Obama a “flat earther.” That sounds more like a description of a Texas tea-partier. Entire states impoverished … “billions … for new Solyndras.” Solyndra was a better example of a freak event than the Alaskan heat wave. “Global temperatures flat for 16 years” is a deliberate misuse of statistics. How about the last 10 years or the last 5 years? By the time I reached Krauthammer’s conclusion on carbon dioxide reduction, I could no longer believe anything he said.Robert Cohen, Richboro 

 

Continue Reading