I found the “Elephant in the Room” letter in the Los Alamos Daily Post interesting on several levels. First, who exactly wrote the letter? Is this anonymous person writing on behalf of all members of the GOP in Los Alamos County? How many folks signed the letter?
Second, how should the three questions asked be answered?
Currently, members of a union are NOT forced to pay the portion of dues used for political advocacy if they object, and no one is advocating that they should be forced to do so. They do have to pay for union representation in bargaining with their employer.
Is the focus of the Second Amendment about carrying guns in public? Did the citizens of Boston and Philadelphia walk around the streets carrying weapons? Why would anyone expect that to be the norm now?
Should a pharmacist be required to fill a prescription that violates his religious or moral principles? If he/she has a business that involves serving the public, I would say yes. One wonders how the writer would react if the only undertaker in his/her town is willing to carry out cremations but not burials, because burials violated his or her religious beliefs. Great if you were OK with cremations, but not so great if your religion only allowed burials.
Justice Scalia was a very smart and articulate man, but he had little patience for anyone else, including the other Supreme Court justices. Although he claimed to be a strict constructionist, he had no problem fitting his very conservative views to his opinions, just as every other justice does, whether they be conservative or liberal. How else can you explain his ability to ignore the first phrase of the Second Amendment, i.e., “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, …”, or agree that it was more important to elect Bush than to make sure the votes were counted correctly in the Gore-Bush election, or to grant corporations the right to spend unlimited dollars in political advocacy, just as if they were people?
The Republican majority of the Senate has already displayed their arrogance by refusing to entertain President Obama’s choice for Scalia’s replacement, in violation of the obligation imposed on the Senate by the Constitution. They wish to wait for a Republican president to make the selection. In the event that Mrs. Clinton is elected along with a Republican majority in the Senate, will they continue to refuse to approve the new President’s choice? What will happen if two or three additional justices pass away or resign? What if only one justice is left, or none? Is it still going to be OK to refuse to approve the President’s choice(s)?
Finally, it is certainly true that “Our nation needs a leader who honors the Constitution”, but the public comments and private actions of the Republican candidate for President are completely inconsistent with this concept.