A letterbox with the inscription Letter to the editor

“There but for the grace of God go I,” comes to mind as you read the letter of the lady in your Oct. 14 edition. No family should have to go it alone in catastrophic health matters such as she describes. 

However, it is not properly resolved by making it a partisan political matter. President Trump was elected by the people in 2016 to serve a term of four years ... not three years and nine months. 

One responsibility and duty of the Senate is to appoint justices to the Supreme Court. That responsibility and duty is not voided or suspended by pandemic, public pressure or nearness of an election.

President Lincoln made the decision to defer the appointment of a justice until after an election in another time 150 years ago. The docket of the Supreme Court at that time was as nothing in comparison to what it is today. 

Also, the court is only in session from October to June, so deferring an appointment for what would end up being six months would unduly impede and handicap performance of it. A full court is needed to do its work effectively and efficiently.

The Supreme Court is not about health care --  it is about adjudicating law. The Affordable Care Act is law. There are many who believe it to be flawed law, possibly unconstitutional in part or in whole. It can be and has been challenged. It is now for the court to decide. Democrats and others obviously fear that it cannot withstand close judicial scrutiny and hope that in delaying an appointment now they may have the opportunity to appoint a liberal and pliable justice to save their partisan handiwork.

There is irony in the final sentence of the writer's letter when she charges that “the people should choose their Supreme Court, not an administration hell bent on overturning a specific law."

In point of fact, they did ... in 2016! Their voice then is still applicable today. 

In the second place, those who witnessed the inception and institution of the Affordable Care Act will or should remember it as being, essentially, a Democratic-only event. The Democrats were “hell bent” on passing it in order to hail it as a signal or signature accomplishment of the Obama administration. As they say, what goes around comes around.

Incidentally, Amy Coney Barrett is showing commendable judicial temperament, acumen and patience in fending off the long knives of the Democrats in the committee hearings.

Jerome C. Burchard


You must be logged in to react.
Click any reaction to login.

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

(4) comments


Merrick Garland was appointed 3 years & 2 months into President Obama’s second term and was considered to have been nominated too close to the 2016 election by many on the right. Additionally Garland was a far superior nominee than Barrett.

Your hypocrisy shows no bounds!


the new justice is one of the brightest and most capable ever chosen. she's a fine fit for the supreme court


Barrett is a legal lightweight who has no more right to be a Supreme Court Associate Justice than does my 16 year old beagle. Her main qualifications appear to be that she is a reliably conservative female. Barrett and Kavanaugh both diminish the legal IQ of this august body to the detriment of America.


glad someone understands how it works

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.