Here are a couple of never-published LTEs I've sent to the Washington Post:
Re: "Kill the debt limit now, Democrats. If you don’t, here’s what will happen." September 22, 2022:
To the editor: Greg Sargent writes of the debt limit negotiations (Sept. 22) that bargaining with Republicans “is like speaking to them in the Vulcan language.” C’mon, Greg. Everyone knows the Republicans speak Klingon.
and more seriously,
Re: "Clarence Thomas and his wife’s texts: A kerfuffle over appearances," April 1, 2022:
To the editor: George F. Will defends the non-recusals of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas by dismissing the appearance of partiality created by his participation in cases specifically related to his wife’s political activities. According to Mr. Will, the appearance of partiality “makes morally fastidious people grumpy” and “fussing about such things is often what people do to justify unjustifiable actions.” Those fussy grumpers, however, must have included the United States Congress, which overwhelmingly amended the Judicial Code in 1978 to require a justice’s recusal whenever his or her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Although the relevant statute was unmentioned by Mr. Will, no less an authority than the late Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledged in 2004 that the “reasonably be questioned” standard must be followed by Supreme Court justices. The Court itself held in 1988 that judicial disqualification for “an appearance of partiality” is necessary to “promote public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system.” It isn’t grumpiness that requires Justice Thomas’s recusal; it’s the law.
One of these days . . .
Comments