Justices’ ‘Disturbing’ Ruling in South Carolina Gerrymandering Case
To the Editor:
"Re “In Top Court, G.O.P. Prevails on Voting Map” (front page, May 24):
The action of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, anchoring the 6-to-3 decision to allow the South Carolina Legislature to go forward with redistricting plans that clearly marginalize African American representation in the state — and after a meticulous review by an appellate court to preclude the plan — is disturbing.
The persistent erosion of voting rights and apparent denial that racism is still part of the fabric of American society are troubling.
Surely there can be deference to decisions made by states; concocting “intent” to deny true representative justice in an apparent quest to return to the “Ozzie and Harriet” days of the 1950s seems too transparent an attempt to “keep America white again” — as they may perceive the challenge of changing demographics.
This particular ruling cries out for the need to expand court membership.
Raymond Coleman
Potomac, Md.
To the Editor:
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito presumes the South Carolina lawmakers acted “in good faith” in gerrymandering the voting district map for the purpose of favoring the Republicans, and not for racial reasons, an improbable rationale on its face.
Astoundingly, he further reasons that the gerrymander is acceptable because it was for partisan rather than race-based reasons (acknowledging that redistricting based on race “may be held unconstitutional.”)
Even though the gerrymander clearly moved a bloc of Black voters so as to deny them representation, Justice Alito accepted the G.O.P. claim that it was done for allowable partisan reasons and was not race-based. This was an obvious subterfuge because a person can vote Republican today and Democratic tomorrow, whereas one’s skin color is immutable.
Carl Mezoff
Stamford, Conn.
To the Editor:
Predictably, in writing for the Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito resorted to his accustomed verbal contortions. You can of course draw a neat distinction between the terms race and politics in the abstract, using a dictionary’s definition.
But given the history of South Carolina’s electoral politics, where the terms have been, practically speaking, interchangeable, surely the last thing to rely upon is a “presumption that the legislature acted in good faith.”
A presumption, implying a distinction already satisfactorily made, contradicts his call for the difficult task of disentangling the two terms, a burden apparently that, in this case, falls only on the plaintiffs.
If this is the voice of the U.S. Supreme Court, it is not the voice of justices but the voice of sophists.
T. Patrick Hill
Winchester, Va.
The writer is emeritus associate professor of ethics and law at Rutgers University and the author of “No Place for Ethics: Judicial Review, Legal Positivism and the Supreme Court of the United States.”
Questions for Republicans
To the Editor:
Re “Accept Election Results? Republicans Won’t Say” (news article, May 12):
People need to stop asking Republicans simply if they will accept the election results. The question that really needs to be asked is, “Will you accept the election results only if your candidate wins?”
And the follow-up question should be, “If Joe Biden wins in a state that you contest, are you also surrendering the wins your other candidates gain because you believe that the election was fraudulent?”
Elaine Edelman
East Brunswick, N.J.
The Case Against the Purebred
To the Editor:
Re “Has Dog Breeding Gone Too Far?,” by Alexandra Horowitz (Opinion guest essay, May 19):
Ms. Horowitz’s takedown of grotesque dog breeding practices is spot on. As People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has long said, “purebred” means “inbred.” Breeders not only exacerbate the animal overpopulation and homelessness crisis but — for profit and perceived “prestige” — also cost “purebred” dogs their health, happiness and even their lives.
Our nation’s shelters are overflowing with dogs in need of homes — purebreds and mutts alike. No one should be breeding more dogs of any type.
If you care about dogs, skip Westminster, breeders and pet stores and — when you are ready to welcome a dog to your family — adopt!
Daphna Nachminovitch
Norfolk, Va.
The writer is a senior vice president of the cruelty investigations department for PETA.
To the Editor:
Kudos to Alexandra Horowitz for shining a light on inbreeding among purebred dogs. With limited exceptions, most families don’t need a purebred canine companion. There are over three million dogs entering U.S. animal shelters each year.
With the lives of so many shelter dogs on the line, purchasing a purebred indicates an unnerving level of vanity and discrimination. Here’s to those who make adoption their first option and give a second chance to homeless dogs (and cats).
Evan Goldman
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Chatbot Therapy
To the Editor:
Re “Loneliness Is a Problem That A.I. Won’t Solve,” by Jessica Grose (Opinion, nytimes.com, May 18):
Ms. Grose’s recent piece on loneliness and A.I. raises crucial concerns about A.I.’s potential to replace human connection. As a law professor who has researched the intersection of mental health, technology and the law, I agree that we must be cautious about overrelying on A.I. for emotional support. However, I believe that the conversation needs to expand beyond loneliness to encompass the broader mental health crisis facing our country.
Anxiety and depression, not just loneliness, are widespread problems that the pandemic has exacerbated. My research has reported on how chatbots have demonstrated promise in delivering cognitive behavioral therapy to individuals struggling with these conditions. This is particularly significant given the shortage of mental health professionals and the barriers many people face in accessing traditional therapy, such as cost and stigma.
In fact, some individuals may feel more comfortable discussing sensitive issues with a chatbot because of the technology’s perceived anonymity and lack of judgment. While A.I. is not a panacea for mental health, it’s essential to recognize its potential to complement existing treatments and reach those who might otherwise go untreated.
We must remain of two minds about A.I. — acknowledging its potential to help us, while also remaining vigilant about its limitations and the importance of preserving genuine human connection.
Michael Mattioli
Bloomington, Ind.
The writer is a professor of law at Indiana University.
Criticism of Israel
To the Editor:
Re “School Leaders Struggle With Antisemitism Issues” (news article, May 16):
It is disturbing to read that expressing criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza in a classroom is automatically described as antisemitic. Israel is a political entity like any other. It should be acceptable to criticize its actions publicly, as one might criticize any other country for attacking civilians for months on end.
No one would deny a country the right to respond to a horrific attack on its people, as occurred on Oct. 7. Israel’s response, however, has been disproportionate, and teachers and students have a right to say so."
Linda Nathanson
Brookline, Mass.
No comments:
Post a Comment