In our opinion: Undecided Supreme Court cases are a chance to reinforce American ideals

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.


  • one old man MSC, UT
    June 21, 2019 7:16 a.m.

    Not if trump has any say in the matter . . . .

    He claims he has done the "greatest job" of ANY U.S. president.

    He's right -- if you're talking about America's values.

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    June 20, 2019 12:25 p.m.

    It is hubris (and offensive) for conservatives to try and lay claim to "American ideals". It is a backhanded slap against non-conservatives, and a blatant example of the "no true scotsman" logical fallacy.

    As for the claim by Third try screen name: "John Adams said the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people. He further said it was inadequate to govern any others." John Adams did not invent, nor serve as the sole author of, the Constitution. The personal beliefs you quote are irrelevant because not a single word or sentiment from that quote actually made it into the official Constitution of the U.S. It does not matter whether the Founders were Xtian, Deist, atheist, or Kree worshipers of the Supremor. The Constitution of the United States is neutral regarding religion. That's another way of saying religion doesn't matter, it makes no difference, it is meaningless.

    And most importantly, any assertion or implication or suggestion that non-believers are not "moral" is completely untrue and hateful prejudice.

  • n8ive american Shelley, Idaho
    June 20, 2019 12:17 p.m.

    @one old man - MSC, UT
    June 19, 2019 1:29 p.m.
    "Not if trump has any say in the matter . . . ."

    And if we're using Obama, Pelosi, Waters, AOC as examples of "American ideals" count me out.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 19, 2019 8:57 a.m.

    @Moderate
    RE: "I voted for Trump, hoping"...
    ---
    You really voted for Trump? Hoping he would denuclearize North Korea?

    That wasn't on anybody's radar during the campaign. He never promised that. Neither did Ms Clinton. The changes with North Korea, them sending athletes to form a combined team with South Korea and their starting peace talks with South Korea were unimaginable before 2016. Don't know how you voted based on that.

    ===

    RE: "Trump didn't drain the swamp"...
    --
    Pretty sure no President can. That's kinda up to us. We vote them in, not the President.

    Pres Obama didn't drain the swamp either. He promised "No more Washington Politics as usual"... but it was Washington politics as usual his full 8 years.

    ==

    RE: "No wall paid for by Mexico"...
    ---
    Mexico has already paid for the wall (in trade and taxes on trade with Mexico). Congress just won't release the funds to him to use them for the wall he promised to build. that's not his fault. He has no vote on the budget. He doesn't control Nancy Pelosi, nor should he.

    ===

    RE: "Trump has not earned my 2020 vote"...
    ---
    That's great. Who are you going to vote for instead. Ross Perot isn't running.

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    June 19, 2019 8:23 a.m.

    John Adams said the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people. He further said it was inadequate to govern an y others.

    I think that means self-governance.

    All these machinations by the courts and congress are just band-aids on a gushing wound.

    Further to the point, we elect our peers, so the sins of our leaders are really looking in the collective mirror.

    In that context, this editorial is kinda cute, don't you think?

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2019 12:02 p.m.

    RE: The Trump debate.
    I voted for Trump, hoping he would bring change to Washington similar to the campaign of Ross Perot. How wrong I was. Perot is a great American dedicated to "country first", while Trump is unquestionably "me first".

    Most glaring is that Trump has accomplished little to nothing. No swamp drained. No wall paid for by Mexico. No denuclearized North Korea. False advertising. You can debate the polls all day, but Trump has not earned my 2020 vote. I know many who feel the same way.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    June 18, 2019 9:17 a.m.

    @Diligent Dave
    "[...] we should do what is right in terms of apportioning congressmen according to the number of citizens in a state."
    Pretty sure that "what is right" is "what the Constitution says and the way we've been doing it for 200+ years" in this case.

    We've been counting all persons, citizens and non-citizens alike, since the first census. If you want to stop that, then you need an Amendment, not just an argument.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    June 18, 2019 9:10 a.m.

    "If the court were to grant that protection, it could open the way for other off-beat trademarks that offend community standards, make vulgarities common, coarsen the culture and degrade attitudes and discourse generally."
    Like "Redskins"?

    "It would be difficult, at best, to argue coherently that a publicly funded cross, star or crescent goes beyond recognition of religion’s general role in the nation’s social fabric and establishes an official state-approved religion."
    You mean like when the Oklahmoa statehouse accepted the Baphomet and Buddha statues to go alongside it's 10 Commandment statue? Oh, wait. They insisted it wasn't "governmetn recognition" when it was a Christian monument, but the moment it was anyone else they were all "you can't do that!".

    Actions speak louder then words.

    "Critics say it is a thinly veiled attempt to give Republicans an edge when drawing political boundaries."
    And we have the e-mails proving it, and the administration officials who blatantly lied to congress about it.

  • Strachan Bountiful, UT
    June 18, 2019 7:40 a.m.

    2 bits

    In response to Light and Liberty’s unsupported assertion that Americans support Donald Trump, I cited his poll numbers. That you view citation to facts as “Trump bashing” how far you have slipped into his thrall.

    And those of us who have been around a while remember just how much you “supported” President Obama on these boards.

  • The Dark Knight Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2019 6:47 a.m.

    The word mentioned in this editorial hasn't tended to "earn movies an R rating" for close to 30 years. Repeating inaccurate cliches and hyperbole lowers the level of discourse in this country as much as anything does.

  • Diligent Dave Logan, UT
    June 18, 2019 1:34 a.m.

    DN editorialist said, "And, finally, it means deciding two gerrymandering cases and one question involving the 2020 Census in ways that are inclusive, rather than divisive."

    "Inclusive?" Are you saying we should apportion how many congressmen a given state has based on the number of citizens in a state, vs just "persons"? That's wrong. That would give states with more non-citizen immigrants more votes, over states that have more citizens.

    If you think that either "offending" people or a state for having more illegal immigrants, who may be afraid to admit they are so, for fear of getting deported, vs accurately counting who is a citizen versus a non-citizen immigrant, we should do what is right in terms of apportioning congressmen according to the number of citizens in a state.

    On this point, I strongly disagree with the writer of this editorial.

    Anyone "in the know" knows that Democrats are for open borders (meaning, really, no borders), because their birth rates are lower (on average) than Republicans. And the number of children they raise to vote for their own party falls short. This is not divisive—just common sense, following intent of the founders of America.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 17, 2019 11:38 a.m.

    @unrepentant progressive
    RE: "What did I miss?"...
    ---
    Do a word-search on "Trump" to see where it went off the rails.

    Strachan when there pretty early (3rd comment of the day).

    Trump comes up 19 times already (11:30 AM)

    Every topic devolves into Trump-Bashing eventually. It's just a matter of time. The best we can do is try to keep it on topic as long as we can before somebody starts throwing bombs.

    I feel the need to defend the President, and the Constitution, and the Supreme Court. Yes, even when Obama or Bush was President. So I tend to get drawn into some of these tangential attacks when they crop up. But I agree it's a head scratcher why we always end up here.

    But my main point was... the Supreme Court isn't about our principles (as Ranch said), or your ideals, or our even your ideology. It's about one thing. The Constitution.

    The SC uses the Constitution (not pop-culture, morals, or even ideology) to determine if laws passed by Congress are Constitutional or not. They aren't out there translating our morals and applying our morals to the law... only the Constitution (not anybody's morality).

    Ideals, idealogs... not what the SC is about.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 17, 2019 11:27 a.m.

    The role of the U.S. Supreme Court is not to reinforce any set of ideals. Its job is to interpret and apply the law without without bias or prejudice.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    June 17, 2019 10:51 a.m.

    I thought this piece was about the Supreme Court and its deliberations on three differing Constitutional questions, not yet another water balloon fight over Trump's ratings or temperament. What did I miss?

    A fundamental question is before the Court in redistricting, speech limitations and religious symbols on public property cases. The DN correctly points out that some of these questions are fundamental to reinforcing some American ideals. While I fundamentally disagree with the way in which the DN might which these cases are resolved, this is the discussion we should be having. Not about Trump. Enough with Trump. He will be out of office in 2020.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 17, 2019 10:05 a.m.

    @Strachan10:36 a.m.
    RE: "The majority of Americans do not support President Trump. His approval ratings hover near forty percent"...
    ---
    Don't know if you're aware of this but... Pres Obama's approval/disapproval ratings were ~the same as Trumps at this point in his first term.

    Did you call for Pres Obama to be ignored or replaced? I doubt it.

    Google "Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rassmussen Reports"...
    ---
    First chart shows Trump and Obama's "total approval" numbers on a graph. They have been crisscrossing each other for the same period in their first term for the past few months. Obama started out way above Trump, but at this point in their first terms, both had similar approval/disapproval numbers.

    Did you say the same things about Obama back then? They had the same approval rating 2.5 years in.

    ===

    Low approval ratings are normal for sitting Presidents.

    Google "United States presidential approval rating - Wikipedia"...
    ---
    Go to "Historical comparison" section.
    Look at each President's high/low.
    None are immune.

    Note:
    Congress approval rating is consistently below 25%... What does that mean?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 17, 2019 9:34 a.m.

    RE: "Supreme Court cases are a chance to reinforce American ideals"...
    ---
    I disagree with this mind-set.

    The Supreme Court's job is Not to enforce any ideals or ideologies. They have one job. A simple job. To apply the Constitution to any laws passed by the Legislative Branch.

    Any laws that are found to be Un-Constitutional are struck down by the Supreme Court. Not based on their ideals, or their "ideology"... but based on the Constitution. Just the Constitution. Not their party ideology, or their personal ideals, just the Constitution.

    If something is un-constitutional (meaning in violation of the words in the Constitution) it's unconstitutional.

    A law doesn't become Unconstitutional because it violates your ideals, your ideology, your political party's philosophy, or or your personal sensitivities.

    As a Supreme Court Justice... the yardstick is the Constitution, not your ideology/ideals.

    ===

    IMO the headline should say, "Supreme Court cases are a chance to reinforce The Constitution"... (not used to reinforce some person's ideals or some party's ideology).

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 17, 2019 5:55 a.m.

    "Our hope is that principles of decency and fair representation will be upheld."

    -- Says the paper that SUPPORTS discrimination in the public square.

    Can anyone spell 'ironic'?

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    June 16, 2019 5:31 p.m.

    @Strachan: "What bothers me is your assumption that those who don’t like him have either been bamboozled by the press or don’t count as Americans."

    Would that those on the left had given half so much benefit of the doubt to the those who didn't like President Obama. With the rarest of exception, objections to Obama had nothing to do with race and everything to do with policy. Yet in far too many cases, those who disagree with him or his policies were immediately labeled as racist, birthers, or bitter about losing their supposed "privilege."

    Now, many in Utah who made those allegations--and accused Utahns of sexism in not voting for Hillary--have found themselves voting for a white guy over a black, woman while asserting race and gender had nothing to do with their vote. Fair enough. But let's judge others by the same standard we would be judged by.

    "There are more Americans who disapprove of him than approve."

    And the same thing can be said of President Obama during significant periods of his time in office. Ditto Reagan and Abe Lincoln. We tend to judge our great presidents far more kindly in hindsight, than in the present.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    June 16, 2019 3:09 p.m.

    Thank you Deseret News Editorial board for pointing out this important principle: "That means upholding a U.S. Patent and Trademarks Office decision to deny a trademark to entrepreneur Erik Brunetti, whose clothing brand is, as the office said, a “phonetic spelling” of a vulgar word — one, we add, that tends to earn movies an R rating. Brunetti has argued this is a First Amendment free-speech issue. We disagree. This is, rather, an issue of community standards".

    If there is not some entity to stand up tall in support of decent community standards, this country will be in more trouble than it already is.

    Erik Brunetti is an idiot of the first degree who has no shame or moral standards whatsoever. I wouldn't buy one of his products if it was free.

  • Strachan Bountiful, UT
    June 16, 2019 2:10 p.m.

    Light and Liberty,

    Support in the mid 80s from Republicans is not weak kneed. The Republican Party, with notable exceptions, has embraced him.

    Maybe he’ll win re-election. I don’t know. Neither do you. All you’re saying is that you and like-minded people support him. That’s a long distance from your original claim that Americans support him.

    It doesn’t bother me that you like him. What bothers me is your assumption that those who don’t like him have either been bamboozled by the press or don’t count as Americans. There are more Americans who disapprove of him than approve. All your spinning doesn’t change the numbers.

  • Light and Liberty St George, UT
    June 16, 2019 12:43 p.m.

    Strachan: You still don't get it, but it doesn't matter anyway. Trump will get re-elected despite a landslide of false accusations, no support among Democrats and a timid Republican party that did everything to throw him aside. He won anyway! This was followed up by calling all of his supporters haters, bigoted, racist, and a host of other labels. His approval rating is 44%, despite weak knee support among Republicans, no support among Democrats, very little amongst the welfare recipients, and an ocean of false narratives from media. This comment will probably not even make it through the editors because any support conflicts with the message they want to deliver. With just a little change of heart, his support would go through the roof. It may happen as the economy keeps growing. It is great to finally have a president that speaks to the 'forgotten man', the men and women that the progressive agenda had lock, stock, and barrel in both the Democratic and Republican parties. We stood through it for decades, wondered why our politicians kept trying to make us into some European state, but found in Trump a man with a mission. God bless him.

  • BJChris Centerville, UT
    June 16, 2019 10:40 a.m.

    I have trust in our system of government. I hope, and do place my trust in the Supreme Court of the United States, to rule on these current matters to weigh-in heavily on the word, United. Our nation's unity is continually under attack. May the wisdom and rulings of this collective body promote ongoing unity; as the Supreme Court interprets the United States Constitution regarding these social issues.
    It is my opinion, that established standards, civility, patriotism, common sense, and a focus on the many, instead of the one, must prevail.

  • Strachan Bountiful, UT
    June 16, 2019 6:38 a.m.

    Light and Liberty

    The numbers don’t support you. Mr. Trump’s support among Republicans is in the mid 80s. That’s lower than either President Bush but higher than President Reagan, for example. His support among independents is in the low to mid 40s.

    President Trump was right about one thing: his supporters are very loyal. They will even make up data to support him.

  • Utahnareapeculiarpeople Salt Lake City, UT
    June 15, 2019 4:44 p.m.

    "Ultimately, the court may have trouble defining a sure-fire way to keep political redistricting from becoming political. They should, however, be able to set firm limits on egregious attempts to rob communities of interest from fair representation." That'd be some trick to say the districts at issue, which were drawn with incredible precision, are okay, but there's some limit.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    June 15, 2019 4:07 p.m.

    @light and liberty

    Being a leader is something trump isn’t. His style matters because character matters. His character is just like any politician, lacking.

    Also I would call tariffs big government. I would call his deficits big government.

    Trump hasn’t done much for the average American except for fringe religious conservatives.

  • Light and Liberty St George, UT
    June 15, 2019 2:42 p.m.

    who cares about his style? I want action on specific policies. I could care less about his tweets. It is such an irony to watch people throwing fits over his tweets and at the same time the very same people not finding anything morally wrong with abortion on demand, even after a child is born, severing life. How can any thinking American not find this ironic, if not tragic?

    As far as Trump's numbers, the fact that he didn't/doesn't have the support of either major party and its members and the main stream media and still be in the 40's is astounding. It is the independents, pro life, less government, pro constitution crowd that brought him to the whitehouse. Without his leadershio, Americans would be fighting a socialist state. Trump is the man for the hour. God bless him.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    June 15, 2019 10:57 a.m.

    I don’t think Americans support trump or at least his style.

  • Strachan Bountiful, UT
    June 15, 2019 10:36 a.m.

    Light and Liberty

    The majority of Americans do not support President Trump. His approval ratings hover near forty percent.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    June 15, 2019 10:10 a.m.

    "A chance to reinforce American ideals"?

    Since when have conservatives, and only conservatives, owned, appropriated, copyrighted, franchised, or otherwise laid claim to "American ideals"?

    What you really mean is "a chance for a minority of citizens to impose their "ideals" on everyone else as if they are the only true Americans!

    That's just arrogance and hubris talking.

  • Light and Liberty St George, UT
    June 15, 2019 9:29 a.m.

    Why have a law at all if you aren't going to enforce it? Why have borders if it is unimportant to know whether you are a citizen? Only those who are tyrants or dictatators would want to make there own rules without regard to the liberties and freedoms of others. If asking someone whether they are a citizen is only bound to one political party, than being a member of any political party is highly suspect. Americans support Donald Trump for one reason, the collusion between both political parties and the media for common sense was no where to be seen. All three have been protecting their own agenda at the cost of representing the truth.