Letters: Invented emergencies shroud Supreme Court in secrecy
Briefly

The Supreme Court's emergency rulings have sparked debate over their legitimacy, particularly regarding the lack of compliance with established criteria for emergencies. True emergencies should result in irreparable harm if not acted upon immediately. The actions of certain justices suggest a prioritization of campaign loyalties over constitutional oaths. Additionally, the absence of effective warning systems, such as sirens in Texas, has led to tragic consequences, contrasting with more prepared regions like Hawaii, which regularly tests its alert systems. This highlights the critical need for accountability in emergency preparedness.
Whether we agree or disagree with the Supreme Court's most recent emergency rulings, we're all victims of a supreme injustice when the issues being decided don't comply with Supreme Court requirements for emergencies.
A true emergency requires that irreparable harm will result if the issue is not acted upon immediately.
Most Supreme Court justices have chosen to pledge their allegiances to campaign promises instead of their oaths to the Constitution and the people.
In the hill country of Texas, local government officials could not bring themselves to spend the money on a siren warning system in an area prone to flash flooding.
Read at www.mercurynews.com
[
|
]