The Macon County News letters page is a public forum open to a wide variety of opinions as a right guaranteed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Letters are neither accepted nor rejected based on content. Letters must be signed and contact information provided. Views expressed are not necessarily reflective of the opinions of publisher, editor or staff. Writers are asked to refrain from personal attacks against individuals or businesses.
Supreme Court credibility severely eroded
The numerous instances of unethical conduct by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas are appalling.
A brief recounting of Thomas’s improprieties is in order. Thomas and his wife have been the beneficiaries of Harlan Crow’s largess over many years, to wit:
1 – Luxury trips on Crow’s yacht;
2 – Vacations at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks;
3 – Crow’s payment of tuition for Thomas’s grand nephew, a boarding school student;
4 – Crow’s purchase of the Georgia real estate in which Thomas’s mother lives;
5 – Extensive renovations to the aforesaid Georgia property;
6 – Thomas’s mother lives rent free on the Georgia property.
From several media reports, none of the above gifts has been reported on required disclosure statements, with the possible exception of the tuition payments.
Thomas has said that he “received reporting guidance from colleagues.”
With the credibility of the U.S. Supreme Court severely eroded, two issues regarding Thomas should be pursued:
1 – Who were the colleagues from whom Thomas received reporting guidance? and,
2 – Impeachment of Thomas.
The second issue arises because there is no evidence of contrition on Thomas’s part nor any expectation that Thomas will offer his resignation from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Milo R. Beran – Franklin, N.C.
Why ignore a part of the Second Amendment?
Is it possible to keep assault weapons away from would-be killers? Is it possible to keep would-be killers away from assault weapons? Why have assault weapons been made retail items anyway? Why does the National Rifle Association refuse/fail to print the entire Second Amendment in its literature. The Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Why would someone who wants to ban/control assault weapons vote for a candidate who says he/she supports gun rights? Why are we not asking candidates if they support a well regulated Militia? Why ignore that part of the amendment?
Please give all victims of violence by assault weapons your considered answer. Imagine yourself in their place today.
The Eagles sang, “Things in this life change very slowly if they ever change at all.”
Unbelievably, these needless deaths are the rapid changes we see. Victims are gone in the blink of an eye. Yet, some retain their “right to keep and bear Arms.” Surely this is not what the constitutional framers had in mind.
Have you considered voting for candidates who will vote to ban/control assault weapons?
Dave Waldrop – Webster, N.C.
