Editor: I just read Mr. Hiaasen’s column on the subject of the upcoming retention vote for Justices Pariente, Quince and Lewis, which was published in your Oct. 11 edition, and several thoughts come to mind:
1. The comment “they couldn’t care less about Florida, but they love to throw their money around.” Business people like the Koch Brothers do not attain their wealth by simply throwing their money around. Just ask George Soros.
2. “Stoned chimpanzees have a keener grasp of Constitutional law.” Where does Nancy Pelosi appear on that scale – above or below – given her remark that “you need to pass the law so you can find out what’s in it.” This is in regards to the 2,700+-page behemoth compared to the Constitution, which is a mere 4,000 words.
3. Aside from mentioning the ruling overturning of the Affordable Care Act, you failed to cite any other rulings these three judges made. What about the Joe Elton Nixon case, or the overturning of Jeb Bush’s school voucher program? Was the law properly upheld, the public better served in these rulings? Or how do you know that Gov. Rick Scott is keen on filling three court vacancies? If Jeb Bush can nominate a Justice Quince, or if Ronald Reagan can nominate a Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, conservatives have a track record of not being pure ideological when nominating Supreme Court justices. I cannot imagine Barack Obama even remotely considering anyone with any sort of conservative thinking when it comes to nominating justices for the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the only way you can write a column in support of retaining these three justices is to go negative and conjure up another Koch Brother conspiracy in lieu of presenting reasons why these three justices should be retained aside from their educational resume that reinforces my vote even more. Voters have very little to go on when they vote on judges. Why can’t the mainstream press counter the charges and present arguments in favor of these justices? Isn’t that what goes on in courtrooms anyway?