Letters to the Editor: The Dobbs decision is really about states’ rights, not abortion

To the editor: David Lauter’s piece on the U.S. Supreme Court serves to divide us when we strive for unity in this country. It does so by implying that the 2022 Dobbs decision overturning Roe vs. Wade is primarily about abortion. It is not. It is about the rights of the states within our system. (“Supreme Court has right and far-right wings. Their justices might not be those you’d guess,” March 29)

Among the powers given by the U.S. Constitution to the federal government are declaring war, ratifying treaties and incurring debt, among others. All powers not explicitly granted by the states are to remain with the states. The Dobbs decision confirms this.

The decision has nothing to do with liberals and conservatives (or Republicans and Democrats). It has to do with how we are governed. The Constitution has served us well since 1789 and should not be tampered with lightly.

Kevin Minihan, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: The concept of originalism, often invoked by some of the conservative Supreme Court justices, holds that legal texts should be interpreted based on the understanding of their framers.

Therefore, the framers of the Comstock Act in 1873, now being cited by antiabortion advocates in support of a ban on mailing abortion pills, could only have interpreted “mail” as the U.S. Postal Service. Private delivery services such as Fed Ex or UPS did not exist. Therefore, the Comstock Act does not forbid “lewd” material from being shipped by private delivery services.

To take originalism one step further, “mail” in 1873 would only include ground mail, not anything sent by airplane, which would not be subject to the Comstock Act.

Marvin Gordon, Laguna Beach

..

To the editor: Well, blow me down with a feather. Is The Times giving kudos to former President Trump?

Lauter points out that the “justices Trump named to the court aren’t the ones most likely to side with the MAGA movement’s priorities.” It seems blindingly obvious that Trump-appointed justices are actually willing to make judgments not colored by political leanings.

Maybe with a few more conservative-appointed judges, we’ll actually get objective rulings based on the law and the merits of the arguments.

Todd Maddison, Oceanside