Letters to the editor: Responses to Bryan Smith

Smith opinion

I am responding to the column by Republican party official Bryan Smith on the need to keep the rule of law. I totally agree, Mr. Smith. I note your negative examples were two Democrats (one back in 2015 long before pandemic) and Democratic COVID-19 protection policies in Nevada. However, the Republican president and candidate for second term Donald Trump and his appointees consistently show contempt for the rule of law:

• A federal judge said Trump and appointee DeJoy made a politically motivated attack on the US. Postal Service
• Attorney General William Barr got a libel lawsuit (stemming from rape accusation against Trump) shifted from state to federal court so taxpayers can pay Trump’s legal charges
• Trump’s administration has refused to comply with lawful subpoenas; coerced and persecuted federal employees who decried lawless behavior.
• In the current pandemic crisis, Trump undercuts and undermines his own head of the CDC Robert Redfield and NIH infectious disease guru Dr. Anthony Fauci.
• More conservative Idaho Republicans have undercut our own GOP governor using his legal authority to protect Idahoans’ health during this pandemic (with minimal restrictions to reduce spread of COVID19).

So tell me, who is it that disrespects the rule of Law?

Cindy C. Chojnacky, Hailey

Rule of law

In Bryan Smith’s Sept. 17 letter about keeping the rule of law, it is easy to see his agenda. He refers to a 2016 presidential candidate by first name only and suggests she walks freely where others wouldn’t. His preferred candidate ran on a campaign that his opponent was a criminal and he would “lock her up” when elected. Yet another campaign promise broken, likely because there was no criminal case for the actions involved. But he repeated the “crooked” claim enough that it led to our president’s election. Mr. Smith displays a great lack of understanding of science, complaining about bars being closed, where people spend hours sitting near each other without masks (hard to drink with one on), while liquor stores are open, where masked people walk out in minutes with their purchases. In a 1,000 person capacity casino 500 people would be much farther spread out than 500 sitting in a church sanctuary. The strict limit on 50 people for a church should be modified to a percentage of seating capacity, but a lower percentage than casinos due to the seating configuration. I wish Mr. Smith would set aside his agenda and look at the science.

Glenn McGeoch, Meridian

Key differences

In his Sept. 16 guest opinion, Bryan Smith egregiously makes light of the rule of law. While lambasting Nancy Pelosi for visiting a closed hair salon, Smith disregards the many Trump rallies attended by thousands not wearing masks or social distancing. Yet, it is Smith’s criticism of Nevada’s rules concerning religious observations that is most disturbing.

Chief Justice Roberts broke the tie concerning casinos vs. religious observations, stating: “religious observances are comparable to public assemblies, not secular businesses”, the argument being the nature, the duration and the close quarters of such gatherings require stricter space limitations. Smith states that “a casino or restaurant doesn’t engage in constitutionally protected activity”, ignoring that those who patronize them most certainly do. Smith asserts that those “gathering in a house of worship . . . have special protection under the First Amendment”. What “special protection” might that be, that freedom of religious expression supersedes our freedom of assembly? Quite clearly, Smith is advocating that our nation eschew separation of church and state in preference to his own interpretation of our Constitution. Indeed, he wishes to impose his personal values on us, perhaps limiting our right of assembly to days acceptable to his religious calendar.

Christine King, Missoula, Montana