In his letter “Will Joyce and Reschenthaler need pardons?” (Dec. 30, TribLIVE), Scott Huber commented on local congressmen’s support of the Texas attorney general’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Pennsylvania’s presidential election results. Huber predicted dire consequences if the court granted relief to the appellants. He used the term “seditious abuse of the judiciary” in describing the plaintiffs’ actions. Apparently, Huber has no idea what sedition means, but he can be forgiven since Pennsylvania’s attorney general, Josh Shapiro, used the exact same words in describing the appeal. Shapiro should know what sedition means since he is a lawyer, but using inflammatory language is what he seems to do best.
This case is the exact opposite of sedition. Using the courts to address a perceived injustice is the foundation of the rule of law. It is up to the courts to decide the issues in the case, not Shapiro. No one should be afraid to use the courts because they will be labeled “seditious.” The ability of citizens to find justice through the legal system is what separates our great republic from many countries where laws mean nothing.
A better example of sedition in Pennsylvania would be Philadelphia’s mayor declaring Philadelphia is a sanctuary city, free not to enforce federal immigration laws. Shapiro thinking it is fine for an elected official to choose which laws to obey is indefensible.
If we let our elected leaders decide what laws and constitutional rights they can either enforce or disregard, we will find that we will have no rights left.
Stephen A. Davis
Eighty Four