Not surprised by Justice Thomas’ actions
Re: “Thomas defends against allegations of improper gifts,” April 8 news story
Why is anyone surprised by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s lack of ethics in accepting extravagant vacations from his “dear (billionaire) friend” Harlan Crow?
Thomas’ ethical failures were readily apparent as recently as last year when he refused to recuse himself from cases arising out of the January 6 attack on the Capitol, which cases involved the eventual release of emails and texts written by his own wife, Ginni Thomas!
Indeed, we should not be surprised by the ethical failings of other justices, either – such as Trump-appointed conservatives who openly lied during their confirmation hearings about respecting and upholding Supreme Court precedents and then voted to overturn the 50-year-old federal protections guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.
It is obvious the Supreme Court’s declining reputation will continue to erode until its members are subject to the same rules of ethics that bind every other judge in our country. Even that may not be enough, given SCOTUS’s attitude of invulnerability. Perhaps it is also time to change the rule of lifetime appointments for federal judges.
Karen McClurg, Wheat Ridge
Law-abiding until they use gun in a crime
Re: “The rights of law-abiding citizens,” April 20 letter to the editor
While I still (perhaps naively) believe there is a way for people who disagree on issues like crime and gun rights to have productive conversations with each other, it’s almost impossible to argue with people who don’t even understand their own arguments.
The letter writer asks, “How many crimes are committed by responsible gun owners and gun permit carriers?” The question is such a ridiculous paradox, I had to reread it a few times just to make sure I didn’t miss some bit of logic. Most of the mass shootings I hear about are committed by people who legally purchased their weapons and, until the point that they started killing people with them, would be considered by the letter writer to be “responsible gun owners.” When you commit a crime with it, you are no longer responsible. Someone isn’t a criminal until they commit, and in fact, are convicted of a crime. That’s how our country works; we wait until the damage is done before we try to fix the problem. Families and communities are torn apart, lives are lost, and no law can bring them back.
I know there’s no easy solution to the myriad causes of crime in our country, but it seems easy to recognize that the more guns are so easily available, the more crimes that will have deadly outcomes.
Chris Wilson, Denver
Repeating the same mistake and expecting a different outcome? The mantra of “…enforce the laws that we have…” is often stated as the only solution to our epidemic firearm violence. However, this soundbite is a dodge.
Exactly what laws are not being enforced? Certainly, not murder, first-degree assault, possession of a firearm by a previous offender, prohibited use of a firearm, the burglaries of homes-vehicles-businesses to acquire guns, etc.? Those laws are being enforced to the extent that they are solved by law enforcement. But these are all actions taken after the violence and crimes have occurred.
Emergency Protection Orders, the “Red Flag law,” is a law that is under-utilized and can mitigate some of the violence. But it is a law that the “enforce the laws we have” aficionados oppose. Proactive is far more positive and effective than reactive.
Gerald Cole, Centennial
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
