Thursday's ruling said that the health care mandate is constitutional since it's viewed as a tax that Congress has the right to levy. The court's decision is a miscarriage of justice and opens the door to other "tax" mandates. Don't laugh. The world is already heavily populated, and if progressives position abortion as a tax to limit the number of children in society, then the courts may deem it OK. Our freedoms can now be stripped away one "tax" at a time.
CHRIS LUND, HAMBURG, MINN.
• • •
Arg! A big win for Obama and a bigger loss for America. Obama said over and over that the individual mandate wasn't a tax because he pledged to not raise taxes. Now, the court ruled it was a tax.
BILL HALLING, EDINA
• • •
The Supreme Court's decision has restored some of my faith in the health of our democracy. Chief Justice John Roberts will no doubt be viewed by some on the right as a sellout, and unfairly so. I don't know what was in his heart, but I do believe he did what is best for the country.
GEORGE RICHARD, NEW RICHMOND, WIS.
• • •
While it is true that Roberts unexpectedly crossed a partisan dividing line, in finding the Affordable Care Act constitutional, he slyly handed the right a new "tax" that it can rail against in the campaign, making the ruling a double-edged sword. The other decisions that D.J. Tice cites ("Based on recent rulings, it's the court's liberal wing that's rigid," June 29) should be considered no-brainers under existing constitutional jurisprudence, rather than courageous decisions by the right-leaning justices.
Tice is wrong, however, in calling the court's liberals "as reliable as sunrise." He overlooked two of them, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, who crossed party lines to find part of the Medicaid provision unconstitutional, no doubt depriving millions of the coverage they soon would have had. To those unlucky citizens, this defection couldn't have been more noticeable.
MARY McLEOD, St. Paul
• • •
Your article on reaction in Minnesota to the ACA ruling featured a young man who feels that there is too much government intrusion in forcing him to buy health insurance, even though he has a job that has a high risk of injury. "I just take that risk" was his rationalization for that decision. What the article didn't mention was that although he takes the physical risk with that foolish decision, it is the rest of us that carry the financial risk. If he falls off one of his 10-foot ladders, his injuries will be treated, with those of us owning health insurance bearing the cost of whatever treatment he needs. Until the media, including the Star Tribune, start reporting all the ramifications of the ACA on such unwise health care decisions, it is not doing its job.
JIM KARSH, EDEN PRAIRIE
• • •
The June 29 Letter of the Day asks: "How can it be that in a country that has a government that is supposed to be a representative democracy, i.e., government of the people, any decision that is good for the people is at the same time not good politically?"
There have, in fact, been many such decisions, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation and violations of the voting rights of African-Americans and which cost the Democratic Party the votes of southern states for generations.
JOYCE DENN, WOODBURY
* * *
As a progressive pastor, it puzzles me that corporate leaders such as General Mills are taking the lead on issues of justice and compassion, while many clergy try to sidestep the issue. What might it mean for our time when the corporate board serves as more of a social change agent than our pulpits? Minnesota faces a moral fork in the road. In November, we have a choice: Will we extend compassion and tolerance or will we further marginalize our LGBT neighbors? Aren't we suppose to love our neighbors as ourselves?
THE REV. HOWARD DOTSON, Maple Grove
* * *
It's true that there are hidden costs when two people enter into an inappropriate relationship. In the case of the Koch-Brodkorb affair, it's the taxpayers who are paying dearly. Republicans took control of the Legislature two years ago, touting their business acumen. They promised to bring business practices to governance. What business would handle a firing where it was then necessary to charge stakeholders? Where was the HR department in this sordid affair? Did the Senate leadership act without the benefit of counsel? If only there were a PAC picking up the tab for a Republican personnel problem, and saving the party from this disgrace.
ANN RICHARDS, NORTHFIELD, MINN.
* * *
The letter writer who thought St. Anthony should reconsider its decision not to allow an Islamic center ought to keep his nose out of our business (Readers Write, June 25). St. Anthony is a small, high-tax community, and unlike Fridley, Roseville and New Brighton, has very little extra land for commercial use to help ease the tax burden. The decision to deny the Muslim center was based on the commercial zoning code for that area and nothing else. Another religious group was denied access to a nearby property for the same reason. Those who use the race card to bully their way when they have no legal grounds are despicable.
JOHN SNIDER, ST. ANTHONY
* * *
Thank you for remembering 40 years of Title IX ("Mama Taj sees Title IX's work -- in dad, daughters," June 23.) The greater implications of Title IX went far beyond equal access to sports. The more detailed Title IX regulations covered other areas worth noting. The most significant may have been the equal access to academic coursework. This provision, when finally understood and applied, meant that gender would not be the determining factor for academic preparation. Men and women were given equal access to explore their own talents in school coursework. The expanded school opportunities provided better career preparation for both genders.
PRU GUSHWA, MANKATO, MINN.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.