On October 21, 2020

Sad day for SCOTUS

Dear Editor,

Donald Trump and the Republican Senate majority have long conspired to tilt the balance of power toward the pockets of billionaires. Now they’re stacking the Supreme Court with another hard-right, corporate-friendly ringer who will inflict even more damage on ordinary Americans.

Throughout her confirmation hearings, Amy Coney Barrett claimed she was not “on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act.” That’s a shamelessly disingenuous dodge. She has publicly criticized previous rulings upholding the ACA and was explicitly selected by Trump and a powerful cabal of big-money lobbyists as a reliable vote to kill the health care law when it’s challenged in the Supreme Court on Nov. 10.

If the ACA dies, millions of Americans immediately lose health insurance amid a deadly pandemic now spiking in 44 states.  The insurance industry would again be free to punish the 54 million-

plus Americans with preexisting conditions by drastically increasing their premiums or denying coverage altogether.  And the number of Americans with preexisting conditions will only grow as many Covid-19 survivors suffer serious ongoing health issues.

Don’t count on Trump or the GOP to replace the ACA with a better health care bill. No new set of protections will magically appear if he manages to win.

Nor would the loss of the ACA be the only bad news flowing from her appointment to the court. The ideological bias of Barrett, who worked for the GOP in the Bush v. Gore debacle and whose father was an attorney for Shell Oil, far outweighs her judicial credentials. Her extremist views and corporate ties are a danger to American democracy and the civil liberties of everyone. Her writings and associations foretell any number of catastrophic court decisions.

She even declined to acknowledge climate change as scientific fact.

Barrett’s immediate value to Trump also goes beyond the ACA. She would not commit to recusing herself from an election challenge by Trump, nor so much as confirm that a president who decisively loses reelection must leave the White House peacefully, as required by law.

With an entrenched majority of hard line conservatives stacking the court, Barrett’s appointment represents the tragic corruption of our most trusted institution, in service to special interests. Our future depends on electing a Democratic president and Congressional majority to counterbalance such a dangerous bias and restore representation for the people.

Robin Vaughan
Kolderie

Hoosick, New York

Do you want to submit feedback to the editor?

Send Us An Email!

Related Posts

We won’t forget Vermonters

January 8, 2025
Dear Editor,  More than any post-election period that I can recall, Vermonters remain heavily engaged since November’s election. So engaged that many want to know why the problems highlighted on Nov. 5 haven’t already been fixed: education property taxes, housing affordability and availability, healthcare costs, public safety, and the Clean Heat Standard.  This urgency, like…

Vermont Saves makes saving for retirement an easy resolution

January 8, 2025
Dear Editor, As we welcome the New Year, many Vermonters set resolutions to build new skills, improve their health, or spend more time with loved ones. This year, let’s add a resolution that really pays off: saving for retirement. Saving for retirement can be daunting, especially for Vermonters living paycheck to paycheck and struggling to…

Common ground: Working together to address Vermont’s affordability crisis

January 8, 2025
By Amy Spear and Megan Sullivan Editor’s note: Amy Spear, Killington, is the president of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce. Megan Sullivan, Chittenden, is the vice president of government affairs for the Vermont Chamber of Commerce. Each year, the Vermont Chamber of Commerce outlines its legislative priorities with one focus in mind: creating the conditions…

End funding of religious schools

January 2, 2025
Dear Editor, Thanks to G. Gregory Hughes for his Dec. 18 letter, “The dictates of conscience in Vermont.” Mr. Hughes identifies a fundamental flaw in our laws: they allow spending tax money on religious schools. He also suggests a sensible solution to the problem: eliminating state expenditures on all private or religious schools. To paraphrase…