Block Supreme Court nominee
When she decided not to run for governor last year, Sen. Susan Collins said “the best way that I can contribute … is to remain a member of the United States Senate.”
Most Maine residents agreed with her last year, myself included. Three years earlier, she had won a fourth term in office — by a landslide. We trusted her then. We trust her now.
Today, the majority of Maine residents support keeping Roe v. Wade and reversing Citizens United.
Perhaps she foresaw what many of us did not. Perhaps she knew this could be one of her greatest accomplishments. Collins can help bring balance back to the Supreme Court. I urge Collins, and this newspaper, to take take a strong position, and all other steps available, to block the president’s efforts to appoint the next justice until after the fall elections.
Re-elect Angus King
Sen. Angus King is a man of integrity, honor and action. As an independent, he is beholden to neither political party and has become a leader in his own right. As a leader in our wonderful state of Maine, both as governor and senator, he has shown how a person of strong moral principles can uphold the will of the people without being bought and sold by special interests, lobbyists and corrupt campaign financing.
King puts the American people first. Unlike other senators, both Democrat and Republican, who are blindly following the current administration down a path of divisiveness, bigotry and greed, King rises above the rest. He is well-deserving of our trust, our respect and our votes.
When re-elected, King will continue to fight hard for the people of Maine and will be a positive influence in the dysfunctional political realm that threatens our Constitution, freedoms and liberties. King deserves a second term as our senator.
Delay Supreme Court nomination
Sen. Susan Collins has another chance to make a historic vote and to place her name in the right side of history. To do this, she must certainly reject the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court.
As reported in the New York Times, “He went so far as to advocate that Congress consider a law exempting a president — while in office — from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel.” This certainly would keep this nominee from being an independent voice on the court, especially when he may well have chosen for these views.
Collins should go even further, and in view of the delay in even considering the nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016, there should be no vote on any nomination until the independent counsel’s report is issued.
Bond for Congress
I am writing you today in regard to Tiffany Bond and her campaign for the 2nd Congressional District. Let’s be honest, I, like most people I know, am sick to death of the money in politics.
I’m tired of hearing news snippets of how much money an opponent has raised in order to take down the incumbent. Where exactly is that money going and who is it really helping? I hear people say, “Tiffany should invest in some advertising to get her name out there,” but again I ask who really is that helping? I’m here to advertise for her with my time and words.
I believe she is the right person for this job. I’ve seen her break down a bill and explain the pros and cons of it for us people not nearly as familiar with bill and law lingo. She’s also in it for the residents of Maine. She’s the only person running in this great country of ours that I fully believe in and support, and I can’t even vote for her because I do not live in her district. But I want more people like her. Someone who cares more about the people and less about their own pocketbook of power.
Her story should be bigger than it is, and I am here to show my support in all the ways I can. I encourage anyone who is interested in change to check out the Bond campaign and let’s make it happen.
Words matter in abortion debate
Gary Abernathy is correct in his recent column when he writes that “in reality there is no such thing as settled law.” Our three branch system of government, along with the Bill of Rights, ensures that we can question and debate the value and effects of any law. We have avenues for change and progress.
Abernathy states that we cannot agree on how to talk about abortion. He suggests that people use words like “pro-choice” or “pro-abortion” depending on the impact they think these words have. This is also true. I use the word “pro-choice” because it relates to a much larger picture than “pro-abortion.” Historically, women have been denied choice in many ways that men have not.
Other word choices that Abernathy mentions in his piece are “fetus” versus “unborn baby,” part of a woman’s body or separate human being with a divine spark. We could include in this category the words “embryo” or “fertilized egg” depending on specifics. As a pro-choice advocate, I feel all of these words are useful in the discussion about current law.
I am glad that Abernathy suggests that anti-choice citizens focus less on Roe v. Wade, but I take umbrage at his use of the words “change of heart,” as if those of us who favor choice are not using our heads. He thinks his viewpoint is “common sense” as well as religiously correct. He advocates that anti-abortion believers try to convert the rest of us to their way of thinking.
Thankfully, we have the First Amendment that distinguishes between church and state, and later written laws to enforce this separation.