Scott’s actions added
to state’s opioid crisis
Kudos to the fine writing and reporting staff of the Post on the incredible expose of the OxyContin pandemic. The free flow of pain pills in South Florida was clearly the epicenter of this crisis.
Even more revolting: the actions of newly elected Gov. Rick Scott, who immediately killed the proposed attempt at a crucial drug monitoring database and refused pharma’s money to fund it. Attorney General Pam Bondi and countless law enforcement officials and lawmakers provided clear evidence to the governor of the critical need for the system as a way to stem the rampant doctor shopping of bogus pill scripts.
Sign up for The Palm Beach Post FREE weekly Opinion newsletter: Text Opinion to 444999
It was only months later, when the scourge affected him personally with the tragic overdose of a child of a family friend, that Scott apparently had a change of heart. How many lives could have been saved in the interim before the change of heart? Why did the governor need a personal tragedy before he agreed to act to save the lives of others?
Now Scott wants to take his callous and self-centered decision-making to Washington.
JAMES TAFFURI, JUPITER
Impeachment as sole
remedy is dangerous
Much is being made of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s conversion, after working in George W. Bush’s White House, to a belief that any civil suit or criminal investigation or prosecution concerning presidential conduct should be deferred until the president is no longer in office. To the objection that a president might then have no check on his power, Kavanaugh replied that the Constitution provides that check, through impeachment.
Watergate, however, provides a cautionary example of how the remedy of impeachment might operate when the president, through his executive powers, hides or disguises evidence of nefarious deeds or intentions. It was the fortuitous revelations by reporters, and a daring press combined with extraordinarily patient investigation by congressional committees, including the issuance of subpoenas upheld by the Supreme Court, that led to President Nixon’s resignation.
It is unclear whether Justice Kavanaugh’s remedy might be too late to “check” any misdeeds by President Trump with respect, say, to Russia, in time to be effective.
BRUCE MCALLISTER, WEST PALM BEACH
Will new justice help
move us backward?
I am apprehensive about the probable confirmation of President Trump’s second nominee for the Supreme Court. Trump plainly stated during a debate with Hillary Clinton that if elected he would nominate two or maybe three Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade and uphold extremely conservative viewpoints. Now that wish list is closer to reality.
What’s at stake? Judicial decisions by a more conservative court would impact the rights of future generations that have taken decades to acquire. African-Americans fought for nearly a century to enjoy rights possessed by the white community; women waited decades for the right to vote, to have a voice in shaping political trends and exercising more control over their lives; the LGBT community finally won the right to legally marry a beloved partner — a right many others took for granted; and affordable health care for millions of Americans became a reality.
Yet today, people of color battle against voter suppression laws; women are slowly but deliberately being stripped of the right to make choices concerning their own bodies; homophobia is affecting civil rights, and ending affordable health care continues to be a presidential aim.
If the new Supreme Court nominee is confirmed, will that tip the scales toward social progress or social regression?
MARY ANN D’ANGIO, BOYNTON BEACH