Letters: Syria, the Supreme Court and bipartisanship

Syria is a decoy

Re “Trump in Syria” (Letters, April 10): Trump doesn’t care at all for the Syrian people. These are the same people he is trying to keep out of the United States. But he has tried repeatedly to distract attention from the investigations of his connections to Russia.

Trump attacked Syria to prove that his bromance with Putin is not true, and to divert attention from his Russian ties by damaging Syria (and Russia). If he cared about Syria, he would have involved Congress and created a real plan. Everything this fake president has done so far has been to boost his ego or the value of his “brand” or to disprove criminal activity.

‘California option’

Re “A death knell for bipartisanship” (Editorial, April 7): Now the entire nation gets a taste of what it is like for Republicans in California. Bipartisanship is long gone and the Democrats rule the roost. The “nuclear option” should be called the “California option.”

Short memory

Re “Karma, precedent, punishment and the nuclear option” (Viewpoints, April 7): American liberalism, in Charles Krauthammer’s mind, has single-handedly transferred legislative authority to the Supreme Court because those bad and conniving liberals will do anything to get their way.

But a conservative court held sway for over four decades. Decisions on private property, church and state, and firearms, to name a few, all legislated to the right. As for Citizens United and the follow-up McCutcheon vs. FEC, they did wonders for campaign financing.

Maybe Krauthammer feels the court is legislating left because a few cases in the past couple of years went against his narrow political stripe.

 

Sign up

Get on The Take. Read the influential voices on California and national politics and issues. Sign up here.

This story was originally published April 11, 2017 at 12:30 PM with the headline "Letters: Syria, the Supreme Court and bipartisanship."