To the Editor:
I wish to reply to a letter written in the Dec. 11 issue of The Catholic Messenger.
The writer bemoans the futility of voting for a pro-life candidate in the general elections. He writes of the almost impossibility of overturning a U.S. Supreme Court decision. He concludes one should vote as he is inclined without taking the pro-life position into account.
But the U.S. Supreme Court has reversed or overturned prior decisons 57 times in the years of our Republic. That figures out to 1 in about every 4 1/2 years. Supreme Court vacancies occur with regularity. All it takes is a like-minded president and a simple majority in the Senate to appoint a judge of their choosing. Wait until a Supreme Court vacancy appears and appoint a judge or judges who agree with the views of the president and a majority of the Senate.
Tony Humeston
St. Mary Parish, Albia
I appreciate that Mr. Humeston read and considered my December 11 letter offering thoughts regarding an earlier letter in which the author verbalized his position on the role of pro-life issues in voting decisions.
I disagree, however, with his statement that I concluded “one should vote as he is inclined without taking the pro-life issue into account.” I did not conclude that. I offered the thought that a Catholic voter may “decide to consider candidates’ positions on a variety of issues and may, therefore, struggle with the decision of who to vote for. “ I did not did specify those issues at the time, but examples of issues on which the Catholic Church has teachings and/or statements include the environment, war, poverty, racial discrimination, torture, income inequality, capital punishment, minimum wage, euthanasia, and abortion.
I do not dispute Mr. Humeston’s statements about the selection of U.S. Supreme Court justices, but it seems our assessments of what is likely to happen in coming years differ. Time will tell!
Don King