Editorial on court ruling utter drivel
Your June 24 editorial in the Valley Times is nonsensical, especially the opinion that "it lessens judicial activism." How so? In your editorial, you state that "Roberts had to go the extra mile to reach his decision" and "Roberts saw the practical impact of declaring the act unconstitutional, which, in our view would have spawned chaos."
The Chief Justice did go the extra mile, defining a new kind of tax that is applied disproportionately to a person's failure to do something for the first time in 225 years. This after confirming his opinion that the act is not constitutional under the commerce clause. Never mind that the legislators and administration who wrote the law insist that it is a penalty and not a tax.
Seems to me that this is the definition of activism -- ignoring the letter and constitutionality of the law as written and inserting an opinion based on defining the Chief Justice's "legacy." If a law is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional, irrespective of whether overturning the law may have "spawned chaos." That is not for the court to decide, prevent or fix. What a bunch of egotistic nonsense!
Fear of lawsuits should prevent service change
The June 28 article "Health plan advocates lobby for its retention" was an
In my view, this is an incredibly shortsighted move, even if the state is in desperate financial straits. A majority of children are in Healthy Families through private insurers and doctors, so patients have more access to care. Most children in Medi-Cal must access care through community clinics (I do not wish to denigrate community clinics, which are essential to the provision of health care in our communities).
Here's what will happen: Brown will sign the budget, and immediately lawsuits will be filed to prevent the destruction of Healthy Families. Courts will decide in favor of Healthy Families, and it will be preserved. Untold taxpayer dollars will be wasted on litigation. It is sad that once again we are taking something away from those who have the least power and can ill afford to deal with this monumental change to their access to health care.
Dealers of guns, illegal fireworks not the same
I just finished reading an article (6/28) by Sean Maher titled "Hundreds of Pounds of Illegal Fireworks Seized in Pacheco Raid."
In his article, Maher quoted Contra Costa Fire Capt. Robert Marshall: "People selling the explosives might not have the same malicious intent as, say, gun dealers, but their products can be just as dangerous, he added."
Although Capt. Marshall is entitled to his opinion, I would think Maher would contest that statement and demand facts as to why Capt. Marshall feels gun dealers are malicious. Sales of guns are a licensed, legitimate business, unlike the sale of illegal fire works, and it is incumbent upon gun dealers, unlike sellers of illegal fireworks and explosives, to ensure their customers are provided the instruction to handle their purchases safely. There is no comparison between the illegal sales of fireworks and legitimate gun sales. Consequently, the Contra Costa Times owes the legitimate gun dealers in their circulation area an apology for printing such malicious drivel as quoted by Maher, and concentrate on reporting facts rather than opinion.
Chief justice betrayed his obligation
The fact that Chief Justice Roberts and four other justices said the law does not violate the Constitution is outrageous.
Chief Roberts, who was the deciding vote, appears to have acted in the interest of the court and its legacy and not whether or not the law was constitutional. If the Supreme Court is supposed to be a nonpolitical institution but if now subject to political persuasion and public opinion, then we should consider whether lifetime appointments are appropriate.
Lifetime appointments were designed to allow the justices to rule without being swayed by political or public opinion. The role of the court is to rule on whether or not a law passed by Congress and signed by the president is constitutional as written. It is not the role of the court or the Chief Justice to rewrite the law. Never before in our history has any American citizen been forced to buy a product. That precedent is ominous. Government power is growing at an alarming pace -- we all should be worried about that.
Republicans ones betraying their obligation
"GOP lawmakers urge governors not to enact U.S. health care law provisions."
Was the health care law not just found constitutional by the Supreme Court? Is the following not part of the oath of office for every Congressman: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States"? So these Congressmen are urging people to break the law?
The following is the presidential oath of office: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Yet Gov. Romney made this statement minutes after the Supreme Court decision: "What the court did not do in its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States." Romney pledged, "I will act to repeal the health care law." Do we want someone to be president who so openly disrespects the judicial branch of the United States?
Let's all play nice and keep country running
There have been many editorials lately addressing "the borders" and the "immigration problem."
Most people who write in are fairly transparent in that their issue is not with "the borders," but rather with one border in particular. Recent analyses find that immigration from Mexico has gone down, if not reversed, so I'm confused why you never hear these people complain about immigration from Asia.
It seems most of the complainers should be more concerned here since a lot of the jobs in their field or at their pay scale are more likely to be outsourced or filled here, not by Mexican immigrants.
We need to stop breaking people down in our society into teams. The forced rivalries (fights at Bay Area games, political parties villainizing each other, looking at other countries as adversaries) come from pre-established anger, and people feel they need to have a "bad guy" to blame.
We're in this together -- globally. Let's start looking at the actual problems and solutions rather than pointing fingers and generalizing individuals. Playing the blame game won't keep this ship afloat.