Presidents should be free to place their choices on Supreme Court

With her recent announcement that she would vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for a seat on the Supreme Court, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins sets the example for others to follow. As she explained in her statement, the role of the Senate is to examine the experience, qualifications and integrity of the nominee. It is not to assess whether a nominee reflects the ideology of an individual senator or rules exactly as an individual senator would want.

It used to be that the Senate recognized that elections have consequences and that, absent serious questions about a nominee’s fitness or morality, presidents should be free to place their choices on the court. Consider the cases of two ideologically opposed nominees -- Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Scalia was nominated by Reagan and approved 98-0. Ginsburg was nominated by Clinton and approved 96-3. It is time to return to those days.

JOHN TITUS, PEACHTREE CORNERS

Republicans appeal to baser instincts, ignore real issues

Beginning with Michael Dukakis, Republicans have used a very caustic form of character assassination to marginalize Democratic Leaders. It’s always designed to appeal to our baser instincts. Prior to 1988, these were mostly just whispering campaigns.

Now it’s just open season. A large swath of the American public believed that Dukakis was soft on crime, Clinton was corrupt, Obama was not a native-born American, Pelosi was senile and Biden had dementia.

All the while, Republicans have cut taxes on the wealthy to the point that we can’t actually fund the government. In fact, anytime large amounts of money are needed, it has to be raised by immediately issuing more bonds (debt).

The truth is whatever you can convince people of. I prefer a more relevant truth. Is Social Security secure for future generations, and is Medicare strong and prepared for the tidal wave of retiring Baby Boomers? These are moderate programs for the middle class.

BOB LOWTHER, DALLAS