Letters to the Editor | March 1, 2024

I am extremely worried for our republic. Its success depends on our institutions upholding the Constitution and the rule of law. What our republic is struggling with is protecting itself from a bad actor like Donald Trump, who is playing our institutions and succeeding. Trump is probably the most experienced litigant in the country, so he has learned that his number one tool — delay, delay, delay — will keep him not only out of jail but also prevent his trials from even starting until after the election.

The U.S. Supreme Court has now shown that it seems to have embraced Trump’s tactics. The court didn’t need to accept this immunity case, since it had already been cogently decided in the lower courts. The justices won’t even hear the case until April 22, with a decision when? In July? That would make it virtually impossible for Trump’s trials to proceed until after the election, thereby undermining the rule of law and depriving the American voters of an informed decision.

Susan Baraldi, Lansdowne

The Roberts court is the most political U.S. Supreme Court in our history. It had the chance to hear Donald Trump’s immunity case on an expedited basis; it chose not to. Now it has chosen to schedule oral arguments in late April. It is playing right along with the Trump defense strategy to delay. As the court is inclined to hear the case, it should’ve simply approved special counsel Jack Smith’s December request to review the case without waiting for a lower court’s ruling, if clarity of law for the sake of the national good was its primary concern. Apparently, politics prevails over justice in our current court.

M. Cahill, Phoenixville

Dads on Duty at J.S. Jenks Academy for the Arts and Sciences in Chestnut Hill are not only spreading joy to the children, parents, teachers, and principal, they are bringing joy to all of us. If that isn’t something to shout about, celebrate, and honor, I don’t know what is. Thank you to Inquirer reporter Kristen A. Graham for making their story come to light. These fine gentlemen — greeting, making sure students cross the street safely, and welcoming the kids and their parents each morning — are changing lives with their caring and devotion. Just knowing about them gives the rest of us hope and faith in the simple and deeply meaningful way each of us can spread compassion in our communities. Here’s a huge thank you to Dads on Duty. Imagine your movement catching on and growing throughout our beloved city.

Marilyn Frazier, Ambler

Pro-abortion organizations and their media allies are attempting to distort the recent decision by the Alabama Supreme Court regarding certain frozen human embryos created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) as an argument against providing legal protection to children in the womb from abortion. This decision did not make IVF illegal. This decision held an IVF provider civilly liable for accidentally destroying human embryos under Alabama’s “Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.”

This decision held that civil liability existed whether a human embryo was outside the womb or in his or her mother’s womb. Thus, this decision contradicts the pro-abortion position that a human being’s right to life may be legally denied if the human being is living in his or her mother’s womb. Further tangible evidence of IVF’s incompatibility with pro-life beliefs is that “typically successful” IVF requires the manufacturing of numerous human embryos, not all of whom are implanted in the mother. The “excess” human embryos are then killed, indefinitely frozen, or dissected for their stem cells in an effort to cure certain conditions or diseases.

Even though this decision upsets pro-abortion advocates, IVF conflicts with pro-life beliefs. IVF also attacks human dignity, which comes from our creation in God’s image through the conjugal relationship of our parents, rather than in a petri dish by some medical technician. It is fundamentally unjust to place a human being in a frozen prison.

Michael J. McMonagle, president, Pro-Life Coalition of Pennsylvania

I totally agree with columnist Kyle Sammin (never thought I would say that) that ballot restrictions for candidates should be eased. However, he looks at it from the candidates’ perspective. I look at it from the voters’ perspective. In most states, including Pennsylvania, the candidate with the most votes wins. It doesn’t matter if they have a majority. As long as it’s a plurality, it’s sufficient. Some voters fear that if their choice is a minor party candidate, they are throwing away their vote since almost always the winner is from one of the two major parties.

Some states use a ranked choice system. Voters rank their choices, and when all votes are tallied, if nobody has a majority, then the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. The votes for that candidate will then be distributed to the second choice of the voters who voted for that candidate. This continues until someone has a majority of the votes. In that way, we could allow everyone who wants to run to run, and voters would not have to worry about throwing their votes away if they prefer someone not in one of the main parties. The Democratic and Republican Parties could stop trying to keep independent and minor party candidates off the ballot because they would no longer be “spoilers.”

Jules Mermelstein, Dresher, jules.mermelstein@gmail.com

The Inquirer Editorial Board was right to applaud the School District of Philadelphia for embracing the science of reading. Like the board, we are impressed by the bright spots we are already seeing at schools like Lingelbach and are optimistic about further progress as these types of systemic change take hold throughout the district. Further, readers should know that numerous organizations are already aggressively supporting the pivot to science of reading-aligned systems. The work is underway through Read by 4th partners, including: tutoring programs (Reading Allowed, Joyful Readers, Reading Ready), advocacy and teacher training (Teach Plus, Everyone Reads PA, AIM Institute), and teacher preparation through a coalition of higher education programs throughout the Philadelphia area, Saint Joseph’s University’s structured literacy program, Drexel University School of Education, and more.

Angela Marks, founder and executive director, Reading Allowed, Jenny Bogoni, executive director, Read by 4th campaign, and Kate Mayer, cofounder, Everyone Reads PA

This is in response to Inquirer reporter Amy S. Rosenberg’s excellent summation of U.S. Rep. Andy Kim’s filing of a federal lawsuit this week to have the unfair New Jersey “county line ballot” abolished in favor of the use of the “office-block” ballot design, which gives all candidates an equal position on the ballot, and is the design used by all states other than the Garden State. The fact that Kim has won three consecutive open county conventions thus far, which secures his position on those county ballot lines, only bolsters his position and impartiality in wanting to support this type of ballot’s elimination.

Simply put, Kim and his cosponsors on this filing support fairness throughout the election process, standing in stark contrast to New Jersey first lady Tammy Murphy, who knows she is likely the greatest beneficiary of the ballot system currently in place. If Murphy truly wants to demonstrate that she is above the nepotism and party favors she has seemingly benefited from thus far, she will join Kim and others in calling for the abolishment of the unfair county ballot design.

Laura Beverage, Medford

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 200 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.