Letters

Letters 08-24-2015

Bush And Blame Jeb Bush strikes again. Understand that Bush III represents the nearly extinct, compassionate-conservative, moderate wing of the Republican party...

No More State Theatre I was quite surprised and disgusted by an article I saw in last week’s edition. On pages 18 and 19 was an article about how the State Theatre downtown let some homosexual couple get married there...

GMOs Unsustainable Steve Tuttle’s column on GMOs was both uninformed and off the mark. Genetic engineering will not feed the world like Tuttle claims. However, GMOs do have the potential to starve us because they are unsustainable...

A Pin Drop Senator Debbie Stabenow spoke on August 14 to a group of Democrats in Charlevoix, an all-white, seemingly middle class, well-educated audience, half of whom were female...

A Slippery Slope Most of us would agree that an appropriate suggestion to a physician who refuses to provide a blood transfusion to a dying patient because of the doctor’s religious views would be, “Please doctor, change your profession as a less selfish means of protecting your religious freedom.”

Stabilize Our Climate Climate scientists have been saying that in order to stabilize the climate, we need to limit global warming to less than two degrees. Renewables other than hydropower provide less than 3 percent of the world energy. In order to achieve the two degree scenario, the world needs to generate 11 times more wind power by 2050, and 36 times more solar power. It will require a big helping of new nuclear power, too...

Harm From GMOs I usually agree with the well-reasoned opinions expressed in Stephen Tuttle’s columns but I must challenge his assertions concerning GMO foods. As many proponents of GMOs do, Mr. Tuttle conveniently ignores the basic fact that GMO corn, soybeans and other crops have been engineered to withstand massive quantities of herbicides. This strategy is designed to maximize profits for chemical companies, such as Monsanto. The use of copious quantities of herbicides, including glyphosates, is losing its effectiveness and the producers of these poisons are promoting the use of increasingly dangerous substances to achieve the same results...

Home · Articles · News · Random Thoughts · Supreme Women
. . . .

Supreme Women

George Foster - October 6th, 2005
First Lady Laura Bush was only partly right when she suggested the next Supreme Court justice should be a woman.
Come on, Mr. President. The U.S. has nine justices that serve on the highest court in the land. After Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement, one woman remains. The fact that only two females have served in over two hundred years of Supreme Court rulings is shameful. Hundreds of male justices have been confirmed, but only two women?
The best solution is to appoint women for the next four openings on the bench. A five to four majority favoring female justices would help make up for past discrimination. The following are my choices for the next four Supreme Court vacancies.
Anita Hill. You may still remember Justice Clarence Thomas and Hill’s famous confrontation before the Senate committee that originally held hearings on his nomination. Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment in the work place while Thomas could remember none of it. Supporters of each accused the other of pathological lying. Who was telling the truth? Anita Hill’s confirmation would assure us of one honest African-American on the bench. Hill’s place on the court would also provide guarantees that minimal porn would be circulated among the justices in the future.
Ann Coulter. With a law degree from the University of Michigan and a resume of impressive legal credentials, Coulter became famous after writing four best-selling books that prove liberal Americans are traitors. Coulter has the necessary conservative agenda (and then some) to appease right-wing pundits but might need a little refresher course in history. I actually heard her refer to Alexander Hamilton as a past president – Alan Dershowitz gently corrected her during a TV debate.
Hillary Clinton. The Senator from New York would make a wonderful Supreme Court Justice. She is a brilliant attorney and has earned bi-partisan respect during her one term in office for hard work and dedication to the job. Clinton’s nomination to the court would eliminate accusations from the Democrats that the Bush administration is only interested in putting Nazi-types on the court. The most obvious reason for her selection, though, would be to eliminate Ms. Clinton from contention for the presidency. Many Republicans and Democrats would love to see her out of the picture in order to serve their own presidential aspirations.
Anna Nicole Smith. I’m not kidding. The former Playboy Playmate and topless dancer will soon be attending a U.S. Supreme Court hearing with her attorney Howard K. Stern (you couldn’t make this up). The highest court has agreed to hear Smith’s case relating to her inheritance of $474 million from her deceased ex-husband who was 73 years her senior. Smith’s experience in the court system and ability to attain a law degree overnight from any number of mail-order universities should make her an attractive candidate to liven up that stuffy bunch of eggheads.
By the time you read this, President Bush will hopefully have nominated a female to replace Justice O’Connor. It had better be a woman or he has some serious questions to answer from the chief justice of his private domain: Mrs. Bush.
 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 

 

 
 
 
Close
Close
Close