There were three or four very good and sensible letters-to-the-editor in this AM's paper--none from me. One focused on a new state Supreme Court Justice who is "passionate about social justice." The letter-writer was very correct in citing, "I would [feel] better if our newest justice expressed a passon for the rule of law. What we have now is another jurist who will ignore what the law requires to satisfy her own version of 'the right thing.'" He goes on to call such legal actions "well-intentioned, but misguided." He cites Sir Thomas More, in A Man for All Seasons: "When you are rid of all of the laws to get to the Devil and the Devil then turns around to confront you, what will you have left to defend yourself?" Yes, indeed....

Another letter, ignorantly, said, "The coalition that formed a majority to elect President Obama..are [sic] not demanding that government provide for them, but rather that government not work against them." C'mon. There is no political party today that will ensure "that government not work against them."

A third noted how the US 6th Circuit Court ruled Michigan's ban on affirmative action to be unconstitutional. The people approved of this at the ballot box. Now, as this letter correctly states, "A group of people (the justices on the 6th Court) outside of this state decided what was [sic] best for us." That's not what the courts are supposed or authorized to do. (See two paragraphs ahead.)

Emergency Manager Laws, elitist Courts?  Why bother to vote?