It's time for Republicans to fight for court nominee
It's time for Republicansto fight for court nominee
With the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the United States Supreme Court, conservatives must be prepared to fight. Myself and many others fought for up to two years of our lives to re-elect President Bush, and this was one of the main reasons why. The president has not let us down with this nomination.
Judge Roberts is a brilliant jurist, a strict constructionist and a prime choice to replace the all-over-the-map ramblings of departing Justice O'Connor. The Republican party is in the majority. We have the votes to confirm Roberts smoothly and swiftly. However, recent remarks made by Senators Durbin and Schumer indicate that regardless of how reasonable a man Roberts truly is, they will attempt to paint him as being out of the mainstream (Memo from pot to kettle: You're black). There is no reason we cannot win the upcoming fight, but we need to show some backbone that we seem to have been lacking lately. If the Democrats decide to filibuster, we must not shy away from the currently, and inexplicably, shelved non-nuclear nuclear option.
This is the most important battle we face right now. This can be President Bush's moment to shine, and go down in history as a leader, or this can be the beginning of a lame-duck session that will keep Americans from trusting the Republican Party with their conservative ideals for a very long time. If the other party was in power, they'd be willing to fight to win. We owe the country the same dedication, because, unlike them, we're fighting for what's right.
J. BREEN MITCHELL
When rights collide
When I read a July 17 letter from a doctor in The Vindicator, I immediately thought of the quote attributed to Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." How much "evil" surrounds us today because "good men" stood back and said/did nothing? I applaud stores, such as Wal-Mart, and the pharmacists mentioned in the letter for standing up for what they believe in and for doing so in spite of what may be considered popular opinion or even good business. The writer suggests that no one should be allowed to impose his or her moral or religious values on the rest of us. Indeed. If he truly believed this, there would be no point to his letter or his tirade.
The fact that these drugs are legal does not mean that everyone agrees they should be. I have the right to free speech, that does not mean that I should walk up to strangers on the street and call them every filthy name I can think of just because I can. I can legally sit in my living room and drink myself into a stupor day after day, but that doesn't mean I should.
The writer suggests shoppers avoid these businesses and report them to any and everyone who will listen. It saddens me to think that anyone would be so willing to fight to have others follow his beliefs yet be unwilling to fight for the lives of unborn children.
And, finally, the writer pulls the "discrimination" card. Be serious. This word is tossed around so much it has lost its true meaning. It has become a word of last resort, something to be used when all else fails. If no one will listen, if no one will do what you want, scream "discrimination." That will bring them to their knees. This is not about discrimination. This is about choice. These people are choosing life and, apparently, they are tired of other people trying to bully them into doing something they disagree with.
I find it highly offensive that this writer would expect, demand, anyone assist him in purchasing these drugs when they disagree with their use. While the writer, and anyone else who wants to, currently has the right to terminate a pregnancy, that does not mean they have the right to expect the rest of us to help them do so.
MARY BETH SMITH