Neither presidential contender is fit for the job
This nation is in sad shape with our two presidential contenders: The leadership of both parties knows that their nominees are sorry excuses for strong, free world leadership, yet they do nothing.
In James A. Michener’s book “The Bridges at Toko-ri,” about heroic Navy fliers in the Korean War, a commanding officer somberly asks, “Where do we get such men?” In the opposite context, we might ask the same about our presidential nominees and Congress.
E. MARTIN, PEACHTREE CITY
Both candidates think only of themselves
At some point, we need to stop and review what we created. We have a rather obvious narcissistic presidential candidate. We voted him into this position. Some might have done so in reaction to perceived persecution by the opposing political party.
Our rival choice is a president who clearly puts his candidacy above the needs of the country. Perhaps this is because his opposition is viewed as harmful, but when the problem of mental acuity is so apparent, and he refuses to go, isn’t that the definition of narcissism? How are we to be governed by one of two candidates who think only about themselves? Today’s concerns include the development of artificial intelligence. What does it say about us when we have become robots led by parties that demand we follow the party line? Perhaps we should look back to our responsibility as individuals to have real intelligence.
MARTIN MILLER, ROSWELL
Presidential immunity ruling opens another Pandora’s box
I’m not too worried about official acts by the president. A few might be controversial even though the circumstances require them. Harry Truman with the atomic bomb and John F. Kennedy with the Bay of Pigs come to mind. It’s entirely possible they might or might not have changed the direction of history. We’ll never know since we don’t have do-overs. At the time, they were presented as necessary and, for the most part, accepted by the American public.
What is concerning is the definition of nonofficial acts and who gets to define them. If left to their devices, an unscrupulous president will call everything official. In his mind they might well be. We’ve had enough Pandora’s boxes opened already. The Supreme Court has taken the wrapper off another one.
As they say, who watches the watchers?
BRAD FERGUSON, SANDY SPRINGS
Court majority abdicates responsibilities
The six-person majority of the Supreme Court has utterly abdicated its responsibilities to set — and honor — legal precedents to guide other judges and lawmakers in a meaningful way. Instead, they overturn long-standing and workable precedents for no good reason except that they disagree with it or it wouldn’t give them the results they want. The “tests” they substitute are vague and subjective. They profess to “textualism” until the plain meaning of existing law doesn’t suit their purposes. They say they look to history except when the historical record wouldn’t give them the result they want, and they cherry-pick the history they do cite.
They pervert freedom of religion to the freedom of some to impose the strictures of their religion upon others. They are clearly in the tank for those who share their political views and refuse to acknowledge, much less try to set aside, their own biases.
If they worked for me, I would fire all six for incompetence and malpractice.
MARIE RANSLEY, DECATUR
