Begs to differ with Mr. Thackeray
Begs to differ with Mr. Thackeray
Editor:
Mr. Thackeray’s letter to the editor dated Sept. 20 was very thought provoking. He opines that banning people who have been convicted of felonies from voting is unjust and those laws and supporting court decisions should be overturned. It is encouraging to see that people want to challenge the concept of established precedent when they feel a basic right has been violated. (The definition of precedent is standing by that which is decided.) Following precedent is meant to help society by providing some consistency and predictability to the way that the court will decide cases. Certain decisions, however, should be challenged so that bad judgements can be overturned.
One of the two best-known examples of bad precedent can be found in the 1896 decision, Plessy v. Ferguson. The decision in Plessy upheld the legality of segregating public places including schools. This unjust precedent was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court (9-0) in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education.
The decision of whether or not to challenge a bad court decision up to and including the United States Supreme Court should never be held hostage to the status quo of precedent.
His letter does beg one question: If these banished voters were more inclined to cast ballots in opposition to Mr. Thackeray’s positions and candidates, would he still be crusading for their right to vote?
As for Al Gore losing in 2000, since he could not win his own home state where they knew him best, perhaps it truly was not meant to be.
Rick Dow
Editor:
Mr. Thackeray’s letter to the editor dated Sept. 20 was very thought provoking. He opines that banning people who have been convicted of felonies from voting is unjust and those laws and supporting court decisions should be overturned. It is encouraging to see that people want to challenge the concept of established precedent when they feel a basic right has been violated. (The definition of precedent is standing by that which is decided.) Following precedent is meant to help society by providing some consistency and predictability to the way that the court will decide cases. Certain decisions, however, should be challenged so that bad judgements can be overturned.
One of the two best-known examples of bad precedent can be found in the 1896 decision, Plessy v. Ferguson. The decision in Plessy upheld the legality of segregating public places including schools. This unjust precedent was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court (9-0) in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education.
The decision of whether or not to challenge a bad court decision up to and including the United States Supreme Court should never be held hostage to the status quo of precedent.
His letter does beg one question: If these banished voters were more inclined to cast ballots in opposition to Mr. Thackeray’s positions and candidates, would he still be crusading for their right to vote?
As for Al Gore losing in 2000, since he could not win his own home state where they knew him best, perhaps it truly was not meant to be.
Rick Dow
You see, that's how a person answers a direct question, Rick. You do it directly. It's a matter of courtesy. Respect, you know? I should point out however, that there is a difference between a direct answer, and a response. Thanks for the response, at least.
What your response tells me then, is that you have a firm grip on the obvious. Yes, if only Gore had won his own state of Tennessee, it would not have mattered that he was cheated out of the Presidency in Florida, would it.
Of course, the voters of Florida might not be as ready to call it a wash as you apparently are. It was their votes that didn't count, not yours, right? Do you think that is a possibility? It doesn't seem to mollify my hard feelings about the whole deal either.
But that was your real point wasn't it? "So what? Tough luck! Sew buttons on your underwear, Mr Thackeray!" Something like that then, Rick?
I'd like to point out another salient point about your infatuation with precedent in cases before the Supreme Court. There is no precedent for a Presidential election, or any election, to be decided by The Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has no business in the election process. What they did was treasonous, and all of them should have been impeached, and jailed. A vote of the people is the highest authority in the land. Nothing, no President, no Congress, or Supreme Court, can trump a vote of the people in this country. It is THE final say-so! Funny you didn't think that was worth mentioning. Or do you even know it? Does it even matter to you anyway, when it's your boy who won the decision?
There's a few questions for you Rick. Care to take a stab at any of them? And by "stab" I mean an answer, not simply a wordy response signifying nothing more than another one of the Republican Party's endless "talking points".