Letters: Casino would only bring negatives; SCOTUS damaged its own reputation

Casino would only bring negatives

State College does not need a casino, nor does the surrounding area. The negative influence a casino has on its neighborhood has been demonstrated through many studies and there is no need to rehearse them here. As a resident living not three miles from Old Main, and a 1962 graduate of PSU, I oppose the establishment of a casino in the area. It would be a negative addition to central Pennsylvania, and a negative influence on impressionable students of all ages. How many qualified faculty would not consider joining PSU with a casino nearby? How many parents would discourage their children from attending PSU for the same reason? How might a casino degrade the quality of life for all who call this area home? The establishment of a casino must be stopped.

SCOTUS damaged its own reputation

Chief Justice Roberts has claimed public criticism of the Supreme Court’s reputation is unfair. I think his lament is myopic. I started my legal career clerking for a conservative trial judge, and a conservative appellate court judge. While my political views didn’t mirror theirs, we shared a common belief in the rule of law and the importance of judicial precedent.

The law can and should evolve, as in the case of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision overruling the reprehensible “separate but equal” doctrine; still the Supreme Court must give great weight to precedent, especially precedent involving fundamental rights. Failure to do so gives rise to real concerns about political influence and erodes confidence in the rule of law. Circumstances surrounding McConnell’s refusal to allow a hearing on the Garland nomination, recent appointments of Federalist Society partisans, and their misleading answers to questions about Roe v. Wade during their confirmation hearings tend to further erode confidence in the Court.

The Court’s zealous overruling of 75 years of precedent, upending the well-established balance between privacy rights of women and the interests of the state, and suggesting that other privacy rights are now in peril, delegitimizes the Court. The Court has damaged its own reputation.

Chief Justice Roberts has claimed his Court just calls balls and strikes, but in the here and now the umpires are doing much more than that; they are changing the fundamental rules of the game.

Mastriano’s changing stripes

Since winning Pennsylvania’s Republican primary, Doug Mastriano has changed his stripes. His video, “The Right to Life: Doug Mastriano for Governor,” disappeared from his campaign website.

In it, Mastriano says, “My body, my choice is ridiculous nonsense.” The vast majority of Pennsylvanians disagree with him. An August 2022 Franklin and Marshall poll found 89% of Pennsylvanians want abortion legal in some or all circumstances.

Mastriano used to claim abortion as his “No. 1 issue,” and vowed to move “with alacrity and speed” to outlaw, with no exceptions, abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. “I will do everything in my power to protect babies so everyone can live their life as they see fit,” Mastriano declares in his scrapped video.

Obviously, Mastriano’s “everyone” doesn’t include women seeking reproductive health care.

Mastriano realizes that he’s wildly out of step with many Republicans, especially suburban women, who say they’ll have a hard time voting for their party’s nominee because they don’t trust his sudden about-face — or his newfound silence on the abortion issue.

Mastriano’s handlers are reading the polls and muzzling their candidate, but a politician who changes his stripes overnight can’t be trusted — and voters won’t be deceived. His campaign may have deemphasized abortion, but Mastriano has not changed his views.

Keep government mandates out of your private health care decisions. Register to vote by Oct. 24, and then vote on Nov. 8 for Josh Shapiro, the only candidate who has pledged to protect a woman’s right to choose.

More ‘no’ votes

Susan Smith’s excellent piece outlining six reasons to vote to constitutional amendments needs be supplemented with a similar no vote on MastriaNO. He too is a bamboozler.