The demon weed
Re: “Don’t drown marijuana in regulations” [Opinion, Feb. 10]: Like something out of the Dark Ages, our trillion-dollar persecution of a lowly plant persists. After decades of demonizing the herb as something more evil than Satan and justifying long and draconian prison sentences for it, we are supposedly now at the only slightly more civilized point of “legalizing” it — i.e. smothering it with hefty taxes and regulations and ironically necessitating the continuation of a black market on it.
How I long for the good old days when pot was widely and freely available for use, both medicinally and recreationally, with no strings attached. And when our very Declaration of Independence and Constitution — proclaiming the virtues of freedom, self-determination and autonomy — were proudly inscribed on nothing less than hemp itself!
— Gordon Wilson, Laguna Niguel
Judge shopping
The fact that judge shopping is a common practice by lawyers and leftists is evidence of politics and personal bias by the judiciary. The recent ruling by the federal appeals court is a prime example of such abuse.
The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Appeals court is notorious for having its decisions overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The original case was filed in Washington state so it would go to this court upon appeal for the purpose of obstructing the president.
The countries impacted by the temporary ban are the same ones listed by President Obama as dangerous to America and of which the true identifications could not be verified. This was also the opinion of our national security advisors under President Obama. This very dangerous situation aimed at attacking President Trump makes all Americans less safe.
It’s time to stop the political obstruction and put the safety of all Americans first. That is the duty of the president and every judge who has sworn an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution above their own political bias.
— Frank Householder, Huntington Beach
Court got it wrong
The appeals court said, in essence, that the president’s travel ban is unconstitutional. The court was wrong for a very simple reason.
Our Constitution provides protections for American citizens. If a person is not an American, and does not live here, then he or she has none of the rights provided by our Constitution.
While humanitarian efforts may seem appropriate, they are not guaranteed by the Constitution. We do not owe anyone asylum — we grant it to them when the situation warrants it.
One argument is that the executive order violates the constitutional freedom of religion, because the targeted countries happen to be primarily Muslim. But there are Muslim citizens in this country practicing their religion without interference. A candidate for chair of the Democratic National Committee is a noteworthy example. However, to extend that protection to Muslims who are not citizens and are not living here on constitutional grounds is simply wrong, and the appeals court ruling is an attempt to extend that protection, effectively amending the Constitution. Courts do not have that right. The politically correct term for that is “judicial activism,” and it violates the separation of powers provision in the Constitution.
— M.J. Knudsen, Trabuco Canyon
Liberal hypocrisy
Re: “Democrats should filibuster Gorsuch’s nomination” [Opinion, Feb. 9]: When will Erwin Chemerinsky just quietly go away? His recommendation to the Democrats to carry out a futile filibuster on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is typical of the political left’s tactics since Trump’s swearing in.
First of all, this is not a stolen seat as the good dean states. Failure to have a hearing on Obama’s last nominee was a result of the Biden rule. Joe Biden introduced it during similar circumstances in the George H.W. Bush administration. You reap what you sow.
His idea that Trump should have nominated a moderate to fill Scalia’s seat would be humorous if it were not for the hypocrisy. Obama’s two sitting choices were as extremely left as he could muster. Really Erwin?
If Chemerinsky thinks this is an extreme right-wing choice just wait until the next one comes up and the court really tilts to the right for the next 25-30 years, especially when the Senate tilts further toward the Republicans after the midterm election. Elections have consequences, as the previous president said.
— Hugo Folli, San Clemente
Left spews hate
Erwin Chemerinsky believes the Democrats should filibuster the nomination of Neil Gorsuch. Never mind that he believes Gorsuch will eventually be nominated to the Supreme Court. He just wants to spew his discontent with Trump nonetheless. What a waste of time, energy and money.
Nevermind that the nomination of Gorsuch is what the voters want. Chemerinsky’s diatribe on “originalism” is neatly rebutted in the column written by Scott Feldmann [“Why Democrats hate Judge Neil Gorsuch,” Opinion, Feb. 9] on the same page as Chemerinsky’s opinion.
Personally, I am tired of the whining and complaining and negativity being spewed by the left. It is hateful and not at all constructive.
— Norma Yarbrough, Fountain Valley
Blinded by the left
Professor Erwin Chemerinsky is the type of highly intelligent liberal professor that teach our children at our universities that I love to hate. They are so far to the left they probably can’t even make right turns while driving.
What ever happened to those of us that consider ourselves moderates that have been eradicated from the Republican Party? We represent the best of both sides of the aisle. We can look objectively at an argument and with an abundance of commonsense. We’ve been demoted to the likes of dinosaurs and dodo birds.
I subscribe to both Southern California newspapers and the New York Times. When I recently renewed their subscription they had a box to describe what I liked about their paper. I said I was a Republican that was interested into hearing what Democrats were thinking so I could make an informed opinion on substantive issues.
— Barry Wasserman, Huntington Beach
Mainstream?
I want Dean Chemerinsky to outline what is the “judicial mainstream” as he defines it. We hear a lot about the “mainstream.” What is that? I think Dean Chemerinsky is outside the “mainstream.” We cannot have multiple definitions of “mainstream.”
To me, Dean Chemerinsky’s definition of mainstream is extremely left-wing, bordering on socialism if not outright communism. I dare you to print this letter.
— Marvin Tuomala, Westminster
Vouchers offer choice
Re: “Should tax money pay for private-school vouchers?” [Opinion, Feb. 12]: Some would argue that competition in education can help public schools to improve and a family’s ZIP code should not determine where their children attend school. Others might contend that there aren’t enough private schools around for all parents to have total control in choosing where to send their youngsters to school.
I have attended private and public schools and taught in both, so I will share my views on school choice. Middle class and more affluent folks can choose from an array of schools in which to send their children. However, the educational options for poor families is usually quite limited.
Therefore, an educational voucher system for those below a certain income could expand the choices for families residing in impoverished areas. The voucher would help to defray school costs, but parents would still have to come up with funds to pay for extra activities, books and field trips. Some students might want to remain in their current school, while others would opt to enroll in a school they prefer.
Parents who send their children to private schools likely chafe over having to pay twice for education. They pay fees for their own children and also pay taxes for those enrolled in public schools. Perhaps a sliding scale voucher program could be created in order to assist parents at a variety of income levels.
Finally, there’s room in America for all types of private and public educational institutions.
— Christian Milord, Fullerton
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
