The NC voting case before the US Supreme Court brings good reason for ‘citizen hysteria’

NC elections

Regarding “Supreme Court elections case is not a ‘threat to democracy’” (Sept. 20 Opinion):

The question before the Supreme Court in the N.C. voting districts case is should the state legislatures have unbridled power to draw election district lines — with no oversight.

We should all tremble at the proposition that a legislature alone, without democracy’s built-in checks and balances, would have such dominance.

Op-ed writer Pat Ryan says this is a reasonable question, then asks, do we see the problem? Yes, Pat. Loud and clear. Should this come to pass, legitimate elections and democracy will never again see the light of day. That’s clearly grounds for “citizen hysteria.”

Harry Taylor, Charlotte

Role of the courts

I have heard this argument before, that the legislature should make the laws and the judicial should not have power to review the laws. This is ridiculous. The branches of government are absolutely intended to oversee each other. It’s the basics of the Constitution.

Whether the justices are elected or appointed is a moot point. They are still judges and expected to review the law. If you do not like the ruling, then you can appeal to a higher court. Without this oversight by the courts, then how will unlawful laws be overturned?

Oversight by the judicial branch does not remove the independence of the legislative branch.

Jonathan Wiest, Concord

Taxpayer dollars

Regarding “Charlotte violence interruption program to expand,” (Sept. 19):

Only in America could a program that has yet to prove its effectiveness be given an additional $1 million by the federal government. This is why we have a $30 trillion national debt and problems that are getting worse, not better.

While I am grateful that this article is shining a light on the Alternatives To Violence program — and data on the program is incomplete — it appears to have reached only 14 high-risk teens and young adults after six months in 2021. How much money was spent to achieve that paltry outcome?

Warren Smith, Charlotte

Book bans

Regarding “Cabarrus County school board urges transparent book policy,” (Sept. 21):

I read with interest, concern, and some amusement that student interns were asked to leave the Cabarrus County Board of Education meeting before a sex scene from John Green’s “Looking for Alaska” was read aloud.

Today, teens and younger children have the ability to obtain any banned book on that small computer called a phone that lives in their pocket or backpack. If their phones are child protected, I’m pretty sure they know someone whose isn’t.

At 15 I had to stand and watch as my father tore up my copy of “Candide” and burned it. No mobile phones back then, but in less than two weeks I had another copy.

I don’t believe books should be banned. It’s a very dangerous practice. And if you really want a kid to read a book, just ban it.

Karin Kemp, Matthews

Inflation

Contributors to inflation? Economists admit the president has little to do with inflation, but the public still holds him accountable. Reality is that many corporations are enjoying record profits with sky-high prices they attribute to inflation. But the shareholders are the real cause of and beneficiaries from high prices, while citizens either pay the price or do without. We all know the party of business.

Tom E. Bowers, Charlotte

US Supreme Court

What purpose does the U.S. Supreme Court serve if in their interpretation and application of the Constitution and law they ignore the will of the majority? A court filled with judges who only recognize the values and perspectives of a small minority is inherently flawed. A court that arbitrarily overturns well-established laws delegitimizes the court’s purpose, and people’s confidence in it. That’s where we stand with the current court.

We now see the consequences of a fringe-focused president who filled the court with judges whose personal and political biases live far from the center of our society. We can only correct this by voting, and electing centrist presidents who appoint centrist judges.

Lee Fluke, Charlotte

Civil War?

Among the latest buzz words used by MAGA followers is the threat of “civil war” if their leader is indicted. Never mind equal treatment and enforcement under the law. Forget about any possible misinformation. Disregard what would have happened if you or I had taken classified government documents.

But the question to answer is: Against who are MAGA followers going to declare civil war? The House of Representatives, Senate, Democrats, RINOs, police, military, judges, teachers, CNN, MSNBC? And who declares the war and leads the insurrection? And what if no one shows up? It is easy to predict future events, somewhat harder to predict them accurately. I’m just not sure how a civil war would work.

J. Gregory Fagan, Charlotte

The Panthers

I see where Coach Matt Rhule believes “with all his heart” the the Carolina Panthers are “close” to a win. Come on man, everyone knows close only counts in horseshoes.

Bob Buch, Columbia