The Daily Pennsylvanian is a student-run nonprofit.

Please support us by disabling your ad blocker on our site.

To the Editor: In his letter to the editor ("Vote Nader, elect Bush," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 10/24/00), Robert Pringle criticizes Brian Cope for the pro-Nader stance he takes in his column "A vote for Nader won't be wasted" (DP, 10/23/00). One of these criticisms is that "the idea of a Supreme Court full of reactionaries" that haunts the nightmares of every Gore supporter will become a reality if Bush is elected. The idea of a Supreme Court full of reactionaries doesn't frighten me nearly as much as the thought of an entire generation of Americans from Ivy League graduates to third-grade dropouts not ever spending the time to learn the architecture of our government. Written into the Constitution is the much cliched "system of checks and balances." As it regards the appointment of Supreme Court justices, any nomiee must be confirmed by the Senate first. Does anybody remember the three-ring media circus around the Senate confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas? The end result of this hearing: After all the rhetoric on the part of the Democratic Party concerning women's rights, Thomas was confirmed by a 52-48 vote in a Democrat-controlled Senate. Perhaps this will hit a little closer to home for all you liberal Gore supporters out there. Another four-letter justice being bandied about in conversations by white collar liberals is Scalia. The man is an abomination, they say. If Bush is elected he'll fill the court with 'em, they plead. If he wants to fill the court with Scalias, it's not like the Democratic Party will present much opposition. Perhaps it will equal the type of opposition mounted when Scalia himself was confirmed 98-0. Now where does the name Al Gore stand in relation to this? Among the senators in office during the Scalia hearing was one Al Gore. It seems safe to say that Al Gore in fact voted for the very man that his supporters are now citing as among (if not the) most dire reasons not to elect George Bush. Not that I want Bush in office, but can Al Gore really be trusted to be the Al Gore he's currently selling himself as? And if Bush is elected, would a Democratic Senate allow an anti-choice justice or two or three slip into the Supreme Court only to try to hold the Republican Party solely responsible for it come 2004? On Election Day, just take a deep breath and pretend that your vote is just that, a vote, and not a strategy.

Michael Epstein College '00

Nazeri's view biased

To the Editor: In response to the recent pleadings to vote for Al Gore, and not to waste a vote on Ralph Nader, I can honestly say that I've never heard of such hogwash on a national political level. I am voting for Al Gore because Al Gore is the candidate that is closest to being in line with my beliefs and philosophy. He fights for issues that I believe in, and he has the experience and know-how to get things done. I will not, however, be voting for Al Gore to vote against George Bush. Consequently, if Nader supporters believe in their man, who am I to say that they don't have the right to express their support for a tireless crusader through the ballot box? Democrats and Republicans assume the highest level of arrogance when they impose their candidates upon the people, and, in addition, tell us that we should compromise our beliefs for the sake of electability. When you vote against somebody, remember that you're really voting for "nobody." Unfortunately, because of our two-party chauvinism, "nobody" may just win this year.

Henry Brigham College '02

Comments powered by Disqus

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.