Letter to the editor: Good calls by Supreme Court | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Good calls by Supreme Court

Win-loss scoreboard: Trump administration 1/1; John Q. Public 2/0.

The Supreme Court made two good decisions before its summer break.

In gerrymandering, the Supreme Court feels that the states must oversee. I agree gerrymandering is a part of our political system. Redistricting won’t happen again until after the 2020 census results are reported (in 2021). As a good government efficiency and accountability advocate, I favor districts drawn by county lines and by population — so many people per seat in geographic areas. I look to the state to get this done.

The court also rejected adding a citizenship question to the census. That is fair. Just get the census done with the best total results. It doesn’t matter your citizenship status at that point. But we need good numbers of how many people there really are in our area. “Citizenship” matters when it comes to receiving government benefits and voting. My philosophy is: Follow the law “rules,” you win, ignore the law “rules,” you lose.

John Q. Public wins on both. Supreme Court, you’ve done your job.

John A. Waite

South Greensburg


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.