Readers Write (Feb. 3): Supreme Court nomination, Trump's opponents, Trump's opponents' opponents, immigration and Islam, $15 minimum wage

As an ob/gyn and advocate for comprehensive women's health care, I must respond to the Star Tribune Editorial Board's Feb. 2 suggestion that giving Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch a fair opportunity would provide our country a measure of normalcy during this unsettling time. I adamantly disagree. While it was expected that President Trump would nominate a judge on the conservative side, women should be concerned (due to many recent actions by our nation's leader) about how this nominee could affect the basic right of access to health care. In the case of Hobby Lobby Stores vs. Sebelius, Judge Gorsuch ruled in favor of allowing an employer's belief system to prevent employee's access to medical treatment. We learned from experience that restrictions to accessing health care endanger lives, and in this current political climate, I have concerns for how Gorsuch's prior actions foreshadow how he would rule on issues pertaining to women's rights. I believe that the 100,000 women who marched in St. Paul, and more than 3 million nationwide, on Jan. 21 would agree with me that losing access to safe medical care would be anything but normal and that giving Gorsuch a "fair opportunity" is not in our best interest.

• • •

I'm very disappointed in the editorial supporting a "normal" process for Gorsuch. E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post said it well in a Feb. 1 column: why think the GOP's "procedural extremism will be halted if one side is rewarded for violating all the conventions and rules of fair play and the other side just meekly goes along." Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell broke the rules last year by refusing to hold a hearing for Merrick Garland, an eminently qualified candidate. And GOP rule-breaking is only expanding with the party's behavior in this week's Cabinet hearings. Democrats, feeling the heat from the grass roots, are finally growing a spine and deciding it's time to fight GOP bullying. We should support that, not reject it.

• • •

Gorsuch's congressional review process differs from those of prior nominees in one crucial aspect: Whereas other nominees are reviewed based on their own qualifications for Supreme Court service, this nominee needs an extra level of scrutiny contrasting his own qualifications to those of Garland.

If Gorsuch's qualifications come up substantially short of Garland's, then it is the duty of the whole Senate to reject his nomination, even if his qualifications would otherwise suffice for confirmation.

This would be the just price for either party whenever it practices obstruction of particular nominees — all subsequent nominees for the obstructed vacancy must undergo and pass such a two-tier review prior to confirmation.

However, if the two stack up as equally qualified jurists, then Democrats should not obstruct his appointment.

Although I would have personally preferred Garland to have replaced Justice Antonin Scalia's vacant seat, I expect that the two are equally qualified to a close enough degree that the Congress will not hinder Gorsuch's appointment.

However, I don't have the U.S. Judiciary Committee's level of familiarity with either Garland or Gorsuch, and I'll defer to the determinations the members come to as they look into Gorsuch's qualifications in the coming days.

• • •

I am dismayed to learn that Gorsuch has argued vehemently against "assisted suicide" without making a clear distinction between an urge to die that arises from an untreated mental health disorder and the use of a medication to relieve suffering at the end of life. Having lived with ALS for 20-plus years, I know that in addition to the loss of my ability to walk, talk and care for myself, I will inevitably be unable to eat and, eventually, even to breathe. I am not afraid to die. I have lived a full life. But I am afraid of the suffering that lies ahead. Before I reach the final stage, I want the option to die peacefully, at home, surrounded by my family. If Neil Gorsuch is confirmed, medical aid in dying, now legal in six states, could be in jeopardy.

Calls for secession, protests at airports, riots at the University of California, Berkeley, and calls against the current administration as a result of executive orders are in vogue. Yet, when those in the Tea Party movement waived their "Don't Tread on Me" flags and held their rallies against the administration, they were met with fervor, ridicule and disdain. The difference, outside of ideology, between the protests today and the Tea Party is carnage. Had the Tea Party blocked highways, blocked air travel, broke windows, set fires and other mayhem, would the American people and the media have looked upon their plight in the same joyous exuberance we see today?

I've been thinking about the term "snowflake" being cast around by a lot of conservatives. It is meant to be demeaning toward certain liberals who are upset with the election results. A lone snowflake is quite delicate, sensitive to heat, and has no apparent effect when it lands upon someone. But, when there are several billion of them sliding down the side of a mountain together, they can destroy whole towns. Be careful of unified snowflakes. I would suggest a different term be used both ways: fellow Americans.

When Muslim countries welcome Christians into their countries to freely practice Christianity, only then should the Christianized West continue to welcome Muslims into the West. A nice, peaceful, law-abiding Muslim couple can marry and live peaceful, prosperous lives in the West. In 20 years, their 19-year-old son can convert to become a radical jihadi and murder innocent Westerners. It's the religion, stupid!

• • •

So, the Department of Homeland Security offers a Minneapolis nonprofit group $500,000 in taxpayer dollars to "help" prevent radicalization. The board rejects the funds, citing President Trump as the reason (StarTribune.com, Feb. 2). Then we read that the funds may not be awarded to any group? Let's start with that. If DHS insists on flushing that kind of cash, I am willing to not radicalize for much less than $500,000.

With the $15 minimum wage issue in the news again, I would like to offer a solution that will demonstrate fairness to both employees and employers: An accompanying "minimum performance" law that guarantees an increase in efficiency and output for the employers footing the bill for this increased business expense.

I think it is only fair that both sides are considered in any change in government mandates.

As for the details, that would be up to government officials, employees, and employers to hammer out.

I wonder: Are those calling for fairness willing to include everyone's interests in this controversial type of transaction? Do they believe that business owners have rights? Are affected employees willing to do anything different to show increased value for increased pay?