To The Editor:
The editorial titled “State of the Union” was a pathetic and equally partisan perspective on the “state of the union.” The editorial does nothing but further the polarization that exists.
The Supreme Court has changed based on the political influence of the party in charge at the time of a vacancy (three in the last administration). Do you really think it would be any different if the Democrats held the purse at the time? The editorial describes the current court as “depraved, disappointing and ultimately corrupt and partisan.” How so? 6-3 decisions are equally partisan by the three “left-leaning” justices as the current majority of six “right-leaning” justices. Also, just because they don’t come to decisions that you find agreeable or favorable does not mean they are somehow corrupt decisions?
And what evidence is there that Justice Thomas (or any other) has been bought? Do you have any examples beyond your speculation? He has broken no written rules or regulations to my knowledge. Should there be more rules? perhaps. Think about your own situation as editor. Have you been taken to lunch or dinner? A show? Any destination? Been invited by politicians of only one party?
And your comments on the debate:
Biden: “one turned in a less than stellar debate performance” (9 words).
Trump: “the other candidate blustered and lied with every single answer, failing to answer even one question that was asked, instead repeating the exact same lies over and over again with no fact checking from CNN whatsoever” (36 words).
Really? That is your analysis and synopsis? Nothing about clear signs of “dementia” or even at least a mention of confusion and an inability to speak clearly or hold a thought? Who is the real partisan here?
I am not a Trump voter. I am an old school conservative and I can assure you, there are many in Vermont outside of Burlington and Montpelier. Your editorial was completely parochial and nothing more than another attempt to inflame an already polarized electorate. Do your job!
C. Beck
Warren
