It was with alarm that I read the July 8 editorial encouraging the Senate to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat left by Justice Anthony Kennedy. First, President Barack Obama had almost a year to fill the seat left open by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and nominated Judge Merrick Garland, but he was blocked. Two, President Donald Trump's entire term is stained with his dubious legitimacy, not to mention the numerous investigations, lawsuits and depositions pending against him. Anyone he has appointed to this court will have been chosen with the purpose of further dismantling the rule of law to protect him. He's the last person who should be appointing a justice. In only four months we're having a major election. No one should be put on that court until the people can choose their representatives.
Claire Auckenthaler, Minneapolis
• • •
Garland's seat was stolen by Republicans in the most egregious, norm-breaking way possible. I'm not surprised the Star Tribune Editorial Board came out for filling the Kennedy seat immediately, but "two wrongs don't make a right" is a surprisingly weak justification. When you encounter a bully, setting a good example will not address their behavior; it just allows you to continue to be at their disadvantage. Delaying the Supreme Court nomination process is a fight Democrats will almost certainly lose, but it is a fight they must have to prove they are worth anything to their constituents. Do Democrats have any fight in them at all against the bullies?
Landon Thomas, Maple Grove
POLICIES ON BREAST-FEEDING
U.S. resistance action at World Health Assembly is vexing
Will someone explain why the United States threatened Ecuador over a resolution promoting breast feeding for newborns throughout the world? ("U.S. nixes breast-feeding resolution at world body," July 9). Do the lobbyists for infant formulas have that much influence? Is there any common sense remaining in Washington?
Richard Shafron, Plymouth
• • •
The account of the May meeting of the World Health Assembly in Geneva — which meeting expected to adopt a resolution encouraging breast-feeding — (July 9) notes that " ... the U.S. delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations."
Who are these manufacturers of breast milk substitutes? What, if any, are their embraceable relationships to our current government's health care policymakers and administrators?
The coverage of the meeting (reprinted from the New York Times) could have cited these infant formula manufacturers by name. As it has not, will the Star Tribune's future reportage of this matter please give us the brand names of these manufacturers?