Trump says the news about his taxes is ‘fake.’ Then he should show us the real ones.

Appalled by the Trump tax story

Every day there is something appalling in the news that the present administration has done or said. So much so, that many of us have become numb to the lies and exaggerations.

But the news about President Trump’s federal income taxes rocked me out of my complacency: “Trump paid $750 in US income taxes in 2016, 2017,” (Sept. 28). Continue reading to see that he deducted $70,000 — to style his hair!

Of course Trump says it’s fake news. Publish your income taxes and let us decide what is fake and what isn’t. We didn’t have fake news until we had a fake president.

Lucy Grasty, Charlotte

Trump dangles promises, not a plan

President Trump has had almost four years to provide voters with a detailed health care plan, and so far — squat. Sure, he dangles his usual promises. The so-called executive order he signed with great flourish last week means nothing. If the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act, a new law would be required to replace it.

As for that $200 prescription card Trump promised to send every senior citizen, his administration is pledging to borrow almost $7 billion in potential future savings from a drug program that does not yet exist.

When you vote, vote as if your health depends on it. Because it does.

Karin Kemp, Matthews

I want to know a judge’s political party

In “The danger of NC’s partisan judicial races,” (Sept. 27 Opinion) John Wester argues that putting a “D” or an “R” beside a judicial candidate’s name on a ballot is “an attempt to turn those pursuing judicial service into politicians.” I argue that it’s a service to the voter who doesn’t have time to fully investigate all the candidates.

The political fur is flying now because a Supreme Court nominee is a known conservative and likely to interpret and decide complex legal issues in a manner consistent with her principles.

Assuming solid qualifications/records of all candidates, a voter should be able to decide on the basis of judicial candidates’ probable ideologies. Call that “politics” if you want, but as Thomas Mann said, “Everything is politics.”

Phil Clutts, Harrisburg

No ‘R’ or ‘D’ for me, just fair judges

I am an attorney licensed in North and South Carolina. Having recently voted by mail, I was appalled by the number of judges on the ballot with an “R” or “D” beside his or her name. Shouldn’t a person running for judge be an “I”? I want independent judges, fair and impartial judges.

In fact, an “R” or “D” implies bias and an agenda. In addition, an “R” or a “D” doesn’t tell us how they determine truth, their theory of jurisprudence, what law controls - i.e., how they determine what the facts are and how they apply the law to the facts.

Does party affiliation imply qualification? The S.C. legislature only elects qualified candidates. Can North Carolina say the same?

Trish Pegram, Charlotte

I’m OK with Trump making this pick

Joe Biden and others have suggested that voters should have a voice in selecting the next U.S. Supreme Court justice.

Voters already chose the current president whose duty it is to nominate a replacement, and the senators whose duty it is to advise and consent upon that nomination, as the U.S. Constitution stipulates.

Should a vacancy on the court come during the term of the president elected in November, that president will have the duty and privilege to appoint another nominee.

Jim Harris, Davidson

An 8-year term is long enough

With the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, serious consideration should be given to amending Article III of the U.S. Constitution to limit the term of office for Supreme Court and federal judges.

No one person, regardless of position, should ever be elected for a life tenure. A single, 8-year term would suffice. The dynamics of U.S. affairs and events are changing so rapidly that many laws and legal actions should be interpreted with fresh mindsets, regardless of political pressures.

Ed Carlson, Charlotte

In presidential race, state lines irrelevant

I am grateful for the Sept. 28 Forum letter raising the issue of the Electoral College. The disenfranchisement argument stems from the idea that states elect the president instead of we the people. When it comes to electing a president, state boundaries are irrelevant.

We live in the United States of America; let’s act like it

Mike Lauber, Fort Mill

About those candidate TV ads...

Instead of political debates, I would like to see the candidates in a room with nothing but a TV and a referee where they have to watch their own ads then explain/defend them.

Rod Skaggs, Claremont

This story was originally published September 28, 2020 at 2:56 PM.