Readers Speak

Opposing hasty process

Dear Editor,

The League of Women Voters of Warren County joins our national headquarters in calling for “a Supreme Court confirmation process that builds trust in our system and ensures an independent judicial branch.”

In 2016, the United States Senate believed that a Supreme Court vacancy could sit empty for 300 days to allow the voters to express their preference through their votes in a presidential election. Thus, they refused to consider the nomination of a judge with strong intellectual credentials and proven integrity and judicial character. In recent years, the average time between a Supreme Court nomination and the confirming vote has been 68 working days — which is less time than remains in the current Senate term.

The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan political organization that encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in government to shape better communities. After study and member agreement, the League supports or opposes issues, but never supports or opposes candidates or political parties. Thus, our position is not based on the nominee who has been put forward, but on the integrity of the nomination, investigation, and confirmation process. Our concern about the process is only made more serious by the recent surge of confirmed COVID-19 cases among senators.

As the League of Women Voters of the United States said in their Sept. 23, 2020 press release, “Supreme Court justices serve for life and make decisions that impact every American. They require a thorough vetting process that is transparent to the American people. Such a process would be undermined if rushed through. Now is not the time to rush a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court.”

We urge all who agree with us to contact Sens. Bob Casey and Patrick Toomey to let them know of your support for a more deliberative process.

The League of Women Voters of Warren County,

submitted by Susan Stout,


CDC stats are ‘proof’

Dear Editor,

On two consecutive days, letters have accused my recent letter of spreading false information and of being a liar. Let me set the record straight.

I used one source: The Centers of Disease Control and its National Center for Health Statistics. Other sources are secondary.

Here is the website that all should go to when determining truth from falsehood, fact from fiction and misinformation from verifiable fact: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid–weekly/index.htm

As for the charge that I have no “proof,” the data is from the CDC — as recently as last month — and that should be sufficient unless one is looking for “facts” that matches one’s opinion.

As to the charge that what I wrote was “blatantly false,” the data comes from the primary source and was not made up. Those who choose to demean my writings claim that “fact-checking information via multiple credible sources cannot be overemphasized.”

My question to them is: What credible sources are you using? CNN, MSNBC, or other media outlets that discredit anything with which they choose not to agree?

I do make it “regular habit” to fact-check, which most often leads me back to my primary source, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

To paraphrase a recent letter: “I would expect the Times Observer to hold (letter writers) to some sort of minimal standards of truth,” which is why you wrote a retraction, at my behest, a short time in the past when you misspoke of the numbers of youthful deaths due to COVID-19.

To conclude: to state data from its source is not to promote misinformation. It is to broaden one’s understanding and those who choose not to believe are liars to their own selves.

Larry R. Neal,



Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)


Starting at $4.75/week.

Subscribe Today