To the Editor:
Re “In Top Court, G.O.P. Prevails on Voting Map” (entrance web page, Could 24):
The motion of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court docket, anchoring the 6-to-3 choice to permit the South Carolina Legislature to go ahead with redistricting plans that clearly marginalize African American illustration within the state — and after a meticulous overview by an appellate courtroom to preclude the plan — is disturbing.
The persistent erosion of voting rights and obvious denial that racism continues to be a part of the material of American society are troubling.
Certainly there will be deference to selections made by states; concocting “intent” to disclaim true consultant justice in an obvious quest to return to the “Ozzie and Harriet” days of the Nineteen Fifties appears too clear an try to “preserve America white once more” — as they could understand the problem of adjusting demographics.
This explicit ruling cries out for the necessity to develop courtroom membership.
Raymond Coleman
Potomac, Md.
To the Editor:
Writing for almost all, Justice Samuel Alito presumes the South Carolina lawmakers acted “in good religion” in gerrymandering the voting district map for the aim of favoring the Republicans, and never for racial causes, an unbelievable rationale on its face.
Astoundingly, he additional causes that the gerrymander is suitable as a result of it was for partisan slightly than race-based causes (acknowledging that redistricting primarily based on race “could also be held unconstitutional.”)
Though the gerrymander clearly moved a bloc of Black voters in order to disclaim them illustration, Justice Alito accepted the G.O.P. declare that it was executed for allowable partisan causes and was not race-based. This was an apparent subterfuge as a result of an individual can vote Republican at this time and Democratic tomorrow, whereas one’s pores and skin colour is immutable.
Carl Mezoff
Stamford, Conn.
To the Editor:
Predictably, in writing for the Supreme Court docket, Justice Samuel Alito resorted to his accustomed verbal contortions. You may in fact draw a neat distinction between the phrases race and politics within the summary, utilizing a dictionary’s definition.
However given the historical past of South Carolina’s electoral politics, the place the phrases have been, virtually talking, interchangeable, absolutely the very last thing to depend upon is a “presumption that the legislature acted in good religion.”
A presumption, implying a distinction already satisfactorily made, contradicts his name for the tough activity of disentangling the 2 phrases, a burden apparently that, on this case, falls solely on the plaintiffs.
If that is the voice of the U.S. Supreme Court docket, it’s not the voice of justices however the voice of sophists.
T. Patrick Hill
Winchester, Va.
The author is emeritus affiliate professor of ethics and legislation at Rutgers College and the creator of “No Place for Ethics: Judicial Assessment, Authorized Positivism and the Supreme Court docket of the USA.”
Questions for Republicans
To the Editor:
Re “Accept Election Results? Republicans Won’t Say” (information article, Could 12):
Folks must cease asking Republicans merely if they are going to settle for the election outcomes. The query that actually must be requested is, “Will you settle for the election outcomes provided that your candidate wins?”
And the follow-up query ought to be, “If Joe Biden wins in a state that you simply contest, are you additionally surrendering the wins your different candidates achieve since you consider that the election was fraudulent?”
Elaine Edelman
East Brunswick, N.J.
The Case In opposition to the Purebred
To the Editor:
Re “Has Dog Breeding Gone Too Far?,” by Alexandra Horowitz (Opinion visitor essay, Could 19):
Ms. Horowitz’s takedown of grotesque canine breeding practices is spot on. As Folks for the Moral Therapy of Animals (PETA) has lengthy mentioned, “purebred” means “inbred.” Breeders not solely exacerbate the animal overpopulation and homelessness disaster however — for revenue and perceived “status” — additionally price “purebred” canines their well being, happiness and even their lives.
Our nation’s shelters are overflowing with canines in want of houses — purebreds and mutts alike. Nobody ought to be breeding extra canines of any sort.
Should you care about canines, skip Westminster, breeders and pet shops and — if you find yourself able to welcome a canine to your loved ones — undertake!
Daphna Nachminovitch
Norfolk, Va.
The author is a senior vice chairman of the cruelty investigations division for PETA.
To the Editor:
Kudos to Alexandra Horowitz for shining a light-weight on inbreeding amongst purebred canines. With restricted exceptions, most households don’t want a purebred canine companion. There are over three million canines getting into U.S. animal shelters every year.
With the lives of so many shelter canines on the road, buying a purebred signifies an unnerving degree of self-importance and discrimination. Right here’s to those that make adoption their first choice and provides a second likelihood to homeless canines (and cats).
Evan Goldman
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Chatbot Remedy
To the Editor:
Re “Loneliness Is a Problem That A.I. Won’t Solve,” by Jessica Grose (Opinion, nytimes.com, Could 18):
Ms. Grose’s latest piece on loneliness and A.I. raises essential considerations about A.I.’s potential to exchange human connection. As a legislation professor who has researched the intersection of psychological well being, know-how and the legislation, I agree that we have to be cautious about overrelying on A.I. for emotional assist. Nevertheless, I consider that the dialog must develop past loneliness to embody the broader psychological well being disaster dealing with our nation.
Nervousness and despair, not simply loneliness, are widespread issues that the pandemic has exacerbated. My research has reported on how chatbots have demonstrated promise in delivering cognitive behavioral remedy to people combating these situations. That is significantly important given the scarcity of psychological well being professionals and the boundaries many individuals face in accessing conventional remedy, resembling price and stigma.
Actually, some people might really feel extra snug discussing delicate points with a chatbot due to the know-how’s perceived anonymity and lack of judgment. Whereas A.I. just isn’t a panacea for psychological well being, it’s important to acknowledge its potential to enhance present remedies and attain those that may in any other case go untreated.
We should stay of two minds about A.I. — acknowledging its potential to assist us, whereas additionally remaining vigilant about its limitations and the significance of preserving real human connection.
Michael Mattioli
Bloomington, Ind.
The author is a professor of legislation at Indiana College.
Criticism of Israel
To the Editor:
Re “School Leaders Struggle With Antisemitism Issues” (information article, Could 16):
It’s disturbing to learn that expressing criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza in a classroom is mechanically described as antisemitic. Israel is a political entity like every other. It ought to be acceptable to criticize its actions publicly, as one may criticize every other nation for attacking civilians for months on finish.
Nobody would deny a rustic the appropriate to answer a horrific assault on its folks, as occurred on Oct. 7. Israel’s response, nonetheless, has been disproportionate, and academics and college students have a proper to say so.
Linda Nathanson
Brookline, Mass.