Editor, Daily Press:
As is his wont, Dr. Jobe (in his Oct. 6, 2020, column, "Conservative SCOTUS will stop liberal 'crap'") disparages ideas he doesn't like with a label, "crap," that doesn't give the reader the sense of what he's talking about.
He does provide two examples of what he considers left-leaning court rulings having to do with busing and abortion, two hot-button issues that really get people riled up. But what else is he referring to? What is this nonsensical "crap" that he suggests is created by court rulings?
Is he referring to those programs created during the era of FDR, such as the CCC or the WPA or Farm Security Administration? Or perhaps he's referring to Social Security as "crap," even though it was a legislative creation. Or perhaps he's referring to the 40-hour work week, another piece of "crap"? Maybe he's talking about Medicare or Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act, all legislatively created, with no court involvement at all until afterward when some attempts at overturning these programs by court rulings were attempted. Or he may be speaking of the EPA, Clean Water, Clean Air - implemented legislatively by that bastion of left leaning efforts, Richard M. Nixon. Perhaps he considers coal mine safety or OSHA to be "crap." I'd like to see his list sometime.
As for his misspoken reporting of the history of the court and FDR, he stated: "Ever since FDR packed the Supreme Court with liberals who were willing to ratify his grab for power, the court has leaned hard to the left." This is factually and provably incorrect. A cursory reading of history will reveal that while FDR proposed changes to the court that could have resulted in his adding justices, the proposal was repudiated by the people, the court and the Congress. That is, it never happened!
From Wikipedia: "Congress and the people viewed FDR's ill-considered proposal as an undemocratic power grab." "The chief justice (Charles Evans Hughes) testified before Congress that the Court was up to date in its work, countering Roosevelt's stated purpose that the old justices needed help with their caseload."
Why state as fact something that isn't true, never happened? I would think he'd do some research before sending in his articles. Or perhaps he did, and knows better, but wanted to stir up some "crap"!