The Kansas City Star’s Feb. 15 editorial, demeaning Justice Antonin Scalia, was typical of the liberal nonsense that is the daily diet fed to the metropolitan area by The Star.
It is true (and thank God) that Scalia voted according to his constitutional conscience in the cases you cite, but the way you portray his decisions is petty to the max.
To suggest, as you cynically state, that he was on the wrong side of history in any of the cases to which you refer supposes that history will prove him wrong. But that history has yet to be written.
To write that any of his decisions were “shameful” is comical considering your lack of anything resembling fair comment. Everyone in this community knows of your radical left-wing bias, but when a giant of the Supreme Court dies, perhaps you could come out of the clouds and give him the respect he deserves.
Perhaps your readers should have a vote for who sits on the editorial board. It would have to get better.
Although it will be a frigid day in Hades when I agree totally with an editorial written by The Star’s editorial board, I agree that President Barack Obama should nominate a worthy successor to Justice Antonin Scalia and the Senate should give that nominee a respectful hearing (2-15, Editorial, “Scalia’s legacy is polarizing; Congress must not make it worse”).
However, because the majority of the senators are not allies of the president, he will have to do some things he clearly does not want to do.
First, the president will have to work with senators despite the poisonous atmosphere, largely created by the high-handed attitude of the Democrats during the first two years of his administration.
Second, he will have to compromise and nominate a candidate who is clearly representative of the entire country, not just of people who agree with the president or his party.
Republicans, for their part, must respectfully, but fully and seriously, vet the nominee and perform their constitutional duties.
They need to be aware that they might not be in the majority after the election, and the country is ill-served by delaying.
I am one voter who is thoroughly disgusted by the theater of the absurd that our government has become.
Thank you, Jeneé Osterheldt, for enlightening us all on the cultural complexities of the Super Bowl halftime show (2-9, C1, “Super Bowl’s biggest winner: Beyoncé”). And here I thought it was just a bunch of strutting and gyrations.
If only I had known better, I might have returned from the kitchen sooner.
Kansas is spending a huge chunk of the state budget on education (2-12, A1, “Ruling sets up battle on school funding”). When is enough enough?
School finance is an old, unfixed problem. It has been around for decades. Govs. Mike Hayden, Joan Finney, Bill Graves, Kathleen Sebelius and Mark Parkinson dealt with this issue.
At least Gov. Sam Brownback has tried to settle it in a new way. But the greedy old school districts and their hired guns and attorneys keep it going.
Loads of money is at stake. We must defeat the education welfare lobby along with the Kansas Supreme Court. They have been successfully robbing taxpayers.
The only way to fix this problem is to take the money changers out of it.
Give equal vouchers to all students. Allow them the choice of where to spend it.
Mary A. Gomez
Given the recent controversy regarding the absence of persons of color receiving Academy Award nominations, it’s obvious the word “inclusion” no longer means a participatory role in an organization. Rather, inclusion now means a dominant or majority role.
No matter that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is headed by an African-American.
Calling into question the legitimacy of any organization’s minority numbers is nothing more than demagoguery of the first order.
Just maybe fair-minded reviewers concluded there were no motion pictures involving persons of color worthy of nominations. Not in today’s society — inclusion now means you must be part of the organization, whether you merit it or not.