Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I see that a Supreme Court justice signed a book deal for $3 million ("New justice signs $3M book deal, joining others," July 28). Hardly the first justice to do something like that, and probably not the last. Another was paid a near million for a book of essays he had written. Doubtless others will come. There is something about lucrative book deals while you are still in public office that just doesn't quite feel right. Presidents wait until they're out of office to sign book deals. The way the Supreme Court is set up, however, the justices serve for life, leaving little time to reap the financial benefits of their life experiences. That probably explains why the current system works the way it does.

In the end, the real answer lies with something the comic page philosopher Pogo said years ago: "We have met the enemy and they are us." The justices write the books, but we buy them, making these financial deals attractive and possible. And there are no curbs in the way to control that. One way would be to change the retirement age to, say, 75. The way it is now some justices die in office. Not a good retirement plan. Early retirement would give them time to write and profit from their experiences. Good luck with that, you say. But it's worth more attention than we have given it.

We have allowed the court to become politicized. Chief Justice John Roberts has expressed concern about that. Public confidence in the court has suffered. We need three strong and healthy branches in our federal government. We are at risk now of not having that. Change will be a gargantuan task, but most important things are. At some point we have to address the fact that changes need to be made. It will take stronger leadership at executive and legislative levels than we have now to make that happen.

I'm no lawyer or politician, just a guy on the street with an interest in how the wheels of our government work. Around the world the democracy is being challenged. I find that disturbing. What we have today we don't want to lose. It's not perfect, but as Winston Churchill so accurately stated, "Democracy is the worst form of government — except for all the others that have been tried."

Don Osell, Cohasset, Minn.

Sure, it is easy to agree with Nicholas Kristof's argument that loss of affirmative action isn't too important ("The true college admissions scandal," Opinion Exchange, July 28). What we need are fewer barriers to allow people to attend community colleges and public universities. They are really our country's "greatest engines of opportunity."

But Kristof stated two facts that stood out to me. Students from the top 1%, and especially the top 0.1%, of household income are way more likely to be admitted to the Ivy League or other highly competitive private universities. Then Kristof states, almost as a given, that our elite private universities "disproportionately propel graduates into the Senate, the Supreme Court and other top jobs" — positions of wealth and power.

Honestly, a student can get a great education at any number of colleges, but only those elite schools offer students the opportunity to rub elbows with the American aristocracy, or what we would probably call an oligarchy in other countries.

Even within these elite schools, students who were socially accepted into the best clubs and societies will graduate with a platinum-level membership in the Good Ol' Boys' Club (even if they now have a few women). Studies have shown that others, with better academic success but without family wealth and privilege, will only get the silver membership.

Regardless, elite college graduates still get a benefit card that just can't be earned at your local community college or public university.

As a lawyer, Jim Schultz surely has learned the adage: If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the law is on your side, argue the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table. In his July 27 commentary characterizing Minnesota Democrats as "kooky" and "fanatics" and pleading for voters to return Republicans to some leadership in this state, Schultz does a lot of rhetorical table pounding ("State must undo one-party rule," Opinion Exchange).

Facts that he does present are more like cherry-picked quasi-facts.

He says that in a recent poll "only 37% of our state's residents approved of the legislative session." What he doesn't say is that in that poll only 32% rated the session as poor. 27% rated it as only fair. I interpret those numbers as 64% more or less OK with the session, and definitely not feeling it was run by a bunch of kooky fanatics.

He says "only 3% of Minnesotans think their taxes are too low." Now that might actually qualify as a kooky way to present tax opinion. I can agree that virtually no one thinks their own taxes are too low. But in poll after poll, the majority of responders favor increasing taxes on the wealthiest tier of earners. Raising the rate on the top tier was one of the supposedly scary events that Schultz states "could be resurrected at any moment." It seems that the majority of voters don't find that scary.

The twisted use of "facts," the bombastic rhetoric and the lack of any positive, constructive ideas from Schultz as a spokesperson for Minnesota Republicans demonstrates why we should not trust Republicans to improve the lives of most Minnesotans. Positive, constructive ideas and actual law are what the Democratic-controlled Legislature produced. We should applaud that vision and work to see it take effect for the betterment of all, even for those who think it's kooky.

•••

I must respond to "State must undo one-party rule" from Thursday's Opinion Exchange. First, the electorate had a choice between two parties, and we've used the results of that election to form the government we currently have. Second, I'm pretty sure that the writer's issue isn't "one-party rule," because he likely wouldn't have complained if the Republicans had been the dominant party in the last election. Cry me a river!

The over-the-top whining about the worst session for jobs, wages and economic growth in Minnesota history — really? Don't we have to wait a least a couple months to determine that outcome? Democratic policies will be devastating for Minnesota's future — blah, blah, blah. Republicans have been crying about Democrats being so bad for our country at the same time that unemployment has been incredibly low, inflation is cooling, the stock market is stable and the banks have been recently tested for health and have passed the tests. There's also that border thing that has cooled off with the current Biden policies and since it's no longer such an egregious negative, Republicans don't bring it up much anymore.

Democrats have been around for more than two centuries, implementing their treacherous, hideous policies, and somehow, the state still seems to function at a pretty high level. It's hard to get behind the writer's "sky is falling" scenario.

I'd say, there's plenty of states that are fully Republican "one-party rule." You're welcome to relocate to one of them!

In response to the newly renovated Uptown Theater space receiving new letters for the sign ("Uptown's sign letterless for now," July 29), I sure hope it gets apostrophes! "Were open."