Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

We now have a decision. The student loan debt relief that would have relieved middle-class and low-income kids of $10,000 to $20,000 of their massive student debt has died. It died at the hands of five Republican governors and a historically unprecedented, right-wing-packed U.S. Supreme Court ("Minnesotans reevaluate finances after Supreme Court rejects student loan forgiveness plan," StarTribune.com, June 30). This decision deprives our kids and grandkids of the opportunities that so many of us baby boomers tapped into to buy our homes, create small businesses, launch our careers, grow our families and build our wealth.

Let's be certain to take note that those Republican politicians who insist that the $400 billion price tag for student debt relief was unjustified and way too high are the same crowd that, not so long ago, fought tirelessly to pass Trump tax cuts for corporate America and very high net worth taxpayers — at cost of $3.4 trillion.

It seems that it's not so much a question of cost, rather a question of who gets a break and who bears the financial burden.

This is not how America was built.

Roxanne Mindeman, Burnsville

•••

The Supreme Court is at it again, this time ruling in favor of discrimination because of religious beliefs ("The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn't want to make wedding websites for gay couples," StarTribune.com, June 30). But it is a can of worms.

Can gay businesspeople now refuse service to evangelicals because their own religious beliefs determine evangelicals are evil? Are we average citizens going to have to affirm our spirituality every time we shop?

How about political beliefs? Can service be refused because the prospective client is a conservative, liberal, communist or fascist? Or is it just religion?

If it is, we can certainly expect to see some new and interesting religions in the near future. But I seem to remember Jesus warning us, all of us, about the difference between Caesar and God.

Frederic J. Anderson, Minneapolis

•••

Does the Supreme Court decision allowing a vendor to not serve LGBTQ customers because of her religious beliefs mean that a devout fundamentalist Christian vendor can refuse to have me as a customer because I am not a Christian? Can a vendor refuse to serve a Muslim or Sikh or Hindu, as they too are not Christian? Equal justice under the law, all of us having a chance to be treated equal — did the Supremes just nullify that tenet of our Constitution?

Patti Lazarus, St. Paul

•••

The Supreme Court has issued some landmark decisions over the past year. Probably the most publicized — so far — has been Dobbs v. Jackson, a 6-3 decision in June 2022 returning the abortion issue to the states.

Cases this June include Groff v. DeJoy, wherein the court held (9-0) that the U.S. Postal Service did not exercise reasonable religious liberty employment accommodations for an employee; Moore v. Harper, wherein the court held (6-3) that the Constitution's Election Clause does not grant state legislatures exclusive and independent authority to set rules regulating federal elections; and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, wherein the court held (6-3) that race-based affirmative action in determining college and university admissions is unconstitutional.

Moreover, on Friday, in 303 Creative v. Elenis, the court ruled (6-3) that requiring a Christian web designer to design something against her moral beliefs was a violation of her First Amendment rights.

I do not consider the court's 6-3 ruling against the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness program as "landmark." The way I see it, that was an obvious overreach of executive authority and violation of the separation of powers.

People can certainly disagree with the court's reasoning in reaching its decisions. I think it is almost a given that some will in almost every decision. If an issue was not in dispute it would not be before the court.

These decisions may not change many people's minds, even those who read the opinions and dissents. Good or bad, people tend to believe what they want to believe. So for now, the law is the law.

But in my view none of these decisions is a basis for questioning the court's legitimacy.

Bob Jentges, North Mankato, Minn.

•••

In 2008, I went to my local voting site to cast my vote. I live in a very progressive neighborhood. It was packed with enthusiastic Barack Obama supporters like me.

In 2010, I returned to the same voting site and you could have shot a cannon through the building. Once again Democrats didn't show up in an off-year election. They lost 63 House seats that year.

In 2012, I returned to the same voting site. Obama supporters returned in full force. 2014? Dead. I saw three people voting. Mitch McConnell became Senate majority leader after that election.

In 2016, my far-left, progressive neighbors appeared more angry at Hillary Clinton than they did at Donald Trump, and they vowed not to vote or to vote for Jill Stein. I tried to explain to them they were making a huge mistake. That the Supreme Court was at stake. They refused to listen.

This Supreme Court is legitimate. Progressives who didn't vote for Hillary or show up in off-year elections are responsible for the makeup of this court. Let's hope they learned their lesson and support President Joe Biden in 2024.

Elections have consequences.

Diego Cortez, St. Paul

I was surprised at the prominent spot the Star Tribune gave to a June 25 letter writer's opinion on Duluth ("These ideas are not the future," opposing the proposals for new passenger rail service and for turning a portion of Interstate 35 into a parkway).

I have lived for the last 35 years in the traffic nightmare zone the letter writer describes where I-35 dumps onto London Road. There certainly is more traffic than there once was, but it is seldom backed up to a crawl, even on the busiest weekends, and generally it moves along at near the posted 40 mph.

Duluth is far from a destination city for only three months, as the letter writer argues. His opinion on Spirit Mountain is just not the reality and didn't deserve to be included. I really hated seeing such a negative rant published.

Changes in the downtown and the addition of train service are an effort to increase those who see Duluth as a destination, rather than just an impediment to those whose only interest is to see how quickly they can get through the city.

David Baumgarten, Duluth

Over the past couple of days I felt like I could breathe again. I sensed that the pollution has all but disappeared. With Friday's paper, however, it appears that it has resurfaced. I am not talking about the pollution in the air but rather the seemingly endless Taylor Swift pollution in the media. After numerous articles, including five full pages in the Star Tribune, countless TV and radio segments, there were two more pieces/references to the Twin Cities' blockbuster, biggest event ever. I am hoping that by July 4th I will be able to take a good deep mental breath while reading the paper and watching TV.

Bruce Lemke, Orono

•••

Taylor Swift sang 44 songs over 3½ hours (Star Tribune, June 25). Compare that to the Rolling Stones concert I attended as a 16-year-old in Chicago in 1965: Nine songs …

Tom McCarthy, Dassel, Minn.