A20 EZ RE THE WASHINGTON POST.SUNDAY, JUNE 12 , 2022LETTERS TO THE EDITOR[email protected]MICHAEL DE ADDERABCDEFREDERICK J. RYAN JR.
Publisher and Chief Executive OfficerNEWS
SALLY BUZBEE....................................Executive Editor
CAMERON BARR.....................Senior Managing Editor
KAT DOWNS MULDER.......Chief Product Officer & ME
STEVEN GINSBERG............................Managing Editor
KRISSAH THOMPSON.........................Managing EditorSHARIF DURHAMS.................Deputy Managing Editor
MONICA NORTON..................Deputy Managing Editor
LIZ SEYMOUR.........................Deputy Managing Editor
MARK W. SMITH.....................Deputy Managing Editor
SCOTT VANCE.........................Deputy Managing Editor
BARBARA VOBEJDA...............Deputy Managing EditorEDITORIAL AND OPINIONS
RUTH MARCUS................Deputy Editorial Page Editor
KAREN TUMULTY.............Deputy Editorial Page Editor
JO-ANN ARMAO............Associate Editorial Page EditorOFFICERS
JAMES W. COLEY JR.........................................Production
L. WAYNE CONNELL............................Human Resources
KATE M. DAVEY.....................................Revenue Strategy
ELIZABETH H. DIAZ...Audience Development & Insights
GREGG J. FERNANDES.........Customer Care & Logistics
SHANI GEORGE......................................Communications
STEPHEN P. GIBSON.....................Finance & Operations
KRISTINE CORATTI KELLY....Communications & Events
JOHN B. KENNEDY...................General Counsel & LaborMIKI TOLIVER KING..................................................Arc XP
SHAILESH PRAKASH..Digital Product Dev./Engineering
MICHAEL A. RIBERO....................................Subscriptions
JOY ROBINS..........................................................RevenueThe Washington Post
1301 K St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071
(202) 334-ABCDEAN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPEREDITORIALSAMAN traveled this past week
from California to the Montgom-
ery County home of Supreme
Court Justice Brett M. Ka-
vanaugh, allegedly with plans to kill the
jurist and then himself. Authorities said
he was dressed in black clothes and
carrying a backpack and suitcase that
contained a knife, a Glock 17 pistol,
ammunition, zip ties, pepper spray and
other items. He (thankfully) did not
carry out his plan but instead called 911
and turned himself in. It appears mental
health issues were at play, but there is
little doubt that the presence of two
deputy U.S. marshals stationed outside
Justice Kavanaugh’s home was a big
reason the man broke off his planned
attack.
The frightening incident in Wednes-
day’s early hours prompted Republicans
to point out that the Senate approved
last month a bill to enhance Supreme
Court justices’ security, permitting fed-
eral officers to protect justices’ families
as well as court officers themselves, but
that the House has yet to pass anything.
A leaked draft court opinion that, ifformally issued, would overturn Roe
v. Wade has ratcheted up concerns
about court safety. So Republicans in-
sist that Democrats must move quickly.
House Democrats appear determined to
pass a bill but are pausing to consider
whether court clerks should get similar
protection.
Democrats are right to weigh giving
court officials the flexibility to order
protection for justices, their families,
clerks, clerks’ families or anyone else
who might require security because of
their relationship with the court. For
that matter, they should look at extend-
ing protection to lower-court officials,
too. But they cannot take long. The
Senate bill has already languished in the
House for a month. Their time is up.
Federal lawmakers are not the only
ones with a responsibility to help safe-
guard the judiciary. That duty also lies
with those who have protested outside
Justice Kavanaugh’s house in advance of
the coming abortion rights ruling. No
matter how passionately activists feel
about an issue — and we believe strongly
that overturning Roe would be a disas-trous mistake — these feelings do not
justify invading public officials’ private
lives and those of their families.
This is especially true for judges.
Respect for the institution of the court,
the rule of law and the orderly adjudica-
tion of public matters demands that
protests, no matter how justified, stay in
the public square. Otherwise, activists on
any side of any issue — be it voting rights
or minority protections or environmen-
tal rules — could use protest to intimi-
date judges. Judges must be expected —
and also given the space — to make their
best determinations based on deep
thinking, rationality and the law, not
without regard for the public reaction,
but at least without worry that their
families will be besieged.
Sometimes justices will fail in this
charge. But the court’s work will be
neither summed up nor finished with a
single ruling. The institution must be
able to function — and, eventually, right
itself — as it considers a vast array of
controversial disputes in which the pub-
lic should want levelheaded jurists who
are unafraid to go home at night.Respect the institutionSupreme Court justices should be able to feel safe at home.I
N MARYLAND, two highly regarded
Democrats are vying to become their
party’s nominee for state comptrol-
ler, a job that oversees critical ser-
vices including tax collection and rev-
enue estimates and also comes with a seat
on the powerful Board of Public Works,
which vets key public contracts. The July
19 primary pits Del. Brooke E. Lierman
against Bowie Mayor Tim Adams to run
in the first open-seat contest for the
position in more than 20 years.
Our choice is Ms. Lierman , whose
diligent, detail-oriented work as a legisla-
tor in Annapolis and as a civic activist in
Baltimore, which she represents, has
earned her respect as a serious, substan-
tive candidate.
Both are competent and intelligent.
Our preference for Ms. Lierman is
grounded in the fact that her no-
nonsense, nose-to-the-grindstone legis-
lative work has given her a much deeper
familiarity with the state’s challenges,
finances and the comptroller’s office, as
well as relationships with an array of
lawmakers and others with whom she
would need to work as comptroller.
When she discusses the challenges that
the comptroller’s office faces, she talks in
concrete specifics. When Mr. Adams dis-cusses them, he does not get beyond
platitudes.
The winner of the primary will face
Republican Harford County Executive
Barry Glassman, who has no primary
opponent, in the November general
e lection.
Ms. Lierman, elected to the House of
Delegates eight years ago, has been an
extraordinarily proactive lawmaker. She
has championed bills to shield children
who are sexually trafficked from being
prosecuted for prostitution; empower
college athletes, often exploited, by giv-
ing them to the right to unionize and
bargain over health, safety and compen-
sation; and, during the pandemic, priori-
tize the goal of universal, affordable
broadband internet service. She has also
taken leading roles to enact measures
expanding transit, fair housing and gun
violence prevention.
Ms. Lierman and Mr. Adams do not
differ markedly on their overall visions
for the comptroller’s office, whose rough-
ly 1,100 employees work in 12 offices
around the state. She would focus on
easing procedures for low-income indi-
viduals to claim tax credits. He would
seek to close loopholes that enable some
corporations to evade taxes. Both wanttighter procedures to encourage more
competition for state contracts and more
muscular rules to help minority firms vie
for public contracts. Each understands
the primacy of safeguarding Maryland’s
coveted AAA bond rating, which saves
taxpayers money when the state borrows
to finance major projects.
Disappointingly, neither would seem
likely to advance term-limited Republi-
can Gov. Larry Hogan’s goal of expanding
the Beltway and Interstate 270 with toll
roads built with a public-private partner-
ship — the main long-term means of
preventing terrible traffic on the Mid-
Atlantic’s most congested highways from
getting dramatically worse. With a seat
on the Board of Public Works, they could
effectively veto the plan.
Mr. Adams founded and runs a suc-
cessful defense contracting firm and is
the first African American elected as
mayor of Bowie, a city of 58,000. He is a
resourceful executive and, having been
born into poverty in rural Louisiana, has
a compelling personal story. Now
wealthy, he says he has spent $2 million,
so far, on his campaign. Still, Ms. Lier-
man’s breadth of expertise and command
of policy on relevant issues make her the
better choice.Ms. Lierman, a n o-nonsense legislatorFor Maryland comptroller in the Democratic primary.T
HE HEADLINES are full of sto-
ries about threats to democracy
around the world and in the
United States. Despots are on the
rise, endangering freedom of speech,
assembly and religion. But what is it
really like to live under such conditions?
A new decision by the European Court of
Human Rights paints a depressing pic-
ture of the experiences of Jehovah’s Wit-
nesses in Russia, who have been severely
punished for their beliefs.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Chris-
tian religion in which believers submit to
the authority of a single God and eschew
military service. They have existed in
Russia since 1891 and were criminally
prosecuted for practicing their faith in
Soviet times. After the Soviet collapse,
they worshiped openly and were regis-
tered under Russia’s laws, growing to
approximately 400 local congregations
and 175,000 members. Russia’s 1993 Con-
stitution guaranteed freedom of religion.
In 2007, a shadow began to fall over
them. A deputy prosecutor general sent
out a circular letter to regional prosecu-
tors identifying the Jehovah’s Witnesses
as one of several foreign religious groups
that “quite often contribute to the escala-
tion of tensions in society” and “carry out
activities harmful to the moral, mental,
and physical health of their members.” A
cascade of persecution, interrogation,
disruption, surveillance, arrests and
sham legal proceedings followed. Most of
the pressure on the Jehovah’s Witnesses
was based on a broad law approved in
2002 against extremism. Hundreds of
believers have been sentenced to pretrial
detention or imprisonment under the
charge of “extremism,” and as of May 24,
88 are imprisoned. In 2017, Russia’s Su-
preme Court banned the group. Afterlosing many court appeals in Russia, the
Jehovah’s Witnesses turned to the Euro-
pean court, part of the Council of Europe,
a human rights organization that Russia
had joined in 1996.
The court’s 194-page decision, handed
down June 7, is filled with egregious
examples of unjust persecution using the
anti-extremism law. In an early case in
Taganrog, Russia, the European court
found that a banned Jehovah’s Witnesses
text “did not insult, hold up to ridicule or
slander” those outside the religion, nor
promote violence, hatred or intolerance.
The European court ruled that “it is
highly significant that no evidence of
violence, hatred or coercion was ad-
duced” in the government’s case against
the Taganrog congregation. Their reli-
gious activity and publications “appearto have been peaceful in line with their
professed doctrine of nonviolence.”
Throughout, the Jehovah’s Witnesses
faced a legal process stacked against
them. For example, the Russian Supreme
Court did not allow them to submit
arguments in their defense; in other
cases, congregations were not even in-
formed of the cases against them.
The European court’s ruling will prob-
ably have only symbolic impact; Russia
has been ejected from the council in the
wake of the Ukraine invasion, although it
remains bound by the European Conven-
tion on Human Rights until Sept. 16. The
Russian parliament has passed legisla-
tion ending the court’s jurisdiction. But
the ruling is a testament to what happens
when innocent people are stripped of
their rights and dignity by a police state.How Russia punishes ChristiansJehovah’s Witnesses have been abused again and again.ALEXANDER AKSAKOV FOR THE WASHINGTON POST
A ndrei Goncharov, one of 16 Jehovah’s Witnesses convicted of “extremism” in
2015, stands outside a court in Taganrog, Russia, before a hearing.There is no basis for The Post’s claim
that fixing Social Security is “on just about
no one’s to-do list in Washington” [“The
Medicare and Social Security disaster,”
editorial, June 5]. Just about no one? How
about the chair of the House Ways and
Means Social Security subcommittee,
Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.), who has
introduced a bill to extend the solvency of
the Social Security Trust Fund by asking
the wealthy to contribute their fair share
in payroll taxes? How about the bill’s more
than 200 co-sponsors in the House? That’s
hardly “no one,” though it is true that no
Republicans have stepped forward to sup-
port this common-sense fix.
Polling has indicated that Americans
already support the kind of reforms in
Mr. Larson’s bill. They want high-income
earners to contribute more. They want a
more accurate cost-of-living-allowance
formula that helps seniors stay ahead of
inflation. They want benefits boosted, not
cut. For decades, Social Security has kept
retirees, the disabled and their families
out of poverty. Today’s young adults will
rely on their Social Security benefits as
much, if not more, than their parents and
grandparents do. The surest way to avoid
potential “disaster” for current and fu-
ture beneficiaries is for Congress to take
decisive action — and pass Mr. Larson’s
bill.
Max Richtman , Washington
The writer is president of the nonprofit
National Committee to Preserve
Social Security and Medicare.There is work being doneRegarding the June 7 front-page article
“Inside the Manchin-Biden rift and the
Build Back Better talks”:
Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) would
like us to believe that negotiations on the
Build Back Better bill fell apart in Decem-
ber because of a White House news re-
lease that named him against his wishes:
“Manchin exploded, texting a senior
Biden aide that the decision was ‘uncon-
scionable and extremely dangerous’ at a
time when liberal activists were targeting
Manchin’s family with protests.” He then
stuck a figurative finger in President
Biden’s eye by going on Fox News to
announce the negotiations were over.
If only Mr. Manchin showed this level
of passion and concern about voting
rights, climate change, deficit reduction
through increased taxation of wealthy
corporations and individuals, the surviv-
al of our democracy, and the general
welfare of many families and children.
Instead, Mr. Manchin apparently is more
concerned about reducing the deficit
without asking those who can afford it to
help, preserving the filibuster over all
else, and settling scores without demon-
strating any ability to persuade enough
senators to join him in m aking a differ-
ence in anyone else’s life with highly
popular Democratic initiatives — such as
voting rights, the child tax credit, wom-
en’s health protection and, of course,
many components of Build Back Better.
Nice try at PR spin, Mr. Manchin, but the
majority of Democrats see you working
harder at improving your image than for
the betterment of the American people.
Maurice Werner , WashingtonNice try, Sen. ManchinRegarding the June 6 op-ed “Even if
Roe is overturned, Congress must act to
protect the unborn”:
The Supreme Court’s conservative
justices are about to overrule Roe
v. Wade and remove a woman’s right to
an abortion, a right that has existed for
the past 49 years. This will, as a
practical matter, deprive many women
of the right to determine the timing and
size of their family; force some women
to carry a pregnancy to term even in
cases of rape, incest or potentially
life-threatening injury; and force some
women to travel several hundred miles
to another state where they can legally
access an abortion.
Last year, when the Taliban came
back to power in Afghanistan, its leaders
announced that girls would continue to
be allowed to access education. Within a
few months, it was clear that Afghan
girls would be allowed to go only to
primary school but not continue on to
high school or beyond. The Taliban
wants very young girls to be wives and
baby breeders. The Taliban took away
rights that existed for 20 years.
If the Roberts court takes away rights
that have been taken for granted in our
culture and pulls away a foundation that
girls in the United States have relied on to
finish their education, obtain job-related
licenses, take jobs to earn money, serve in
the military, or establish a career or
business, are our justices no better than
the Taliban?
Jill Gordon , Tinton Falls, N.J.A grim comparisonrecords in matters relating to human
rights and international law, Saudi Ara-
bia is now willing to spend a virtually
unlimited sum of money to purchase
acceptance into the world community —
despite its own abysmal history in regard
to human rights — by virtue of the
fledgling LIV Golf Tour.
Mr. Norman’s comment that “we’ve all
made mistakes,” as an excuse for the
state-sanctioned butchery of Post con-
tributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi,
defies description, as does his claim to
be interested only in the rights and
well-being of tour players. This is about
money — the Saudis have it, and some
golfers have apparently decided to over-
look bloodstains on the cash that they
are lining up to receive.
That is their right, but I would suggest
that rather than the Roman numeral for
54 (the number of holes that will make up
one of their tournaments), “LIV” should
instead stand for “Linksters Ignoring
Vivisection,” and their logo should be a
bone saw superimposed over a dollar
sign.
Scott Kenyon , ViennaAfter reading of Greg Norman’s trou-
bled upbringing and tortured relation-
ship with his father, I cannot help but feel
a measure of sympathy for the man
[“Chaos agent,” Sports, June 5].
However, nothing I learned excuses
Mr. Norman’s willingness to assist the
murderous and misogynistic Saudi re-
gime in its blatant attempt to engage in
“sportswashing.” Just as Russia and Chi-
na have manipulated the Olympic Games
as a tool to normalize their horrendousPaydays over principlesRegarding the June 6 Style article
“Back at the beginning — again, and
again, and again”:
Like so many people, I am having great
difficulty absorbing the fact that so many
lawmakers are putting their personal
ambitions above their pledge to serve
when it comes to voting for reasonable
gun laws. These lawmakers should be
required to study unedited photographs
of the victims and see the extensive
damage that was inflicted on their bod-
ies. Possibly, these images would explain
to them why the weapons should be
banned. They could then describe to their
constituents what these photos showed
them in explaining their decision to
support strong gun laws. Given that
many of the Uvalde, Tex., victims had to
be identified using DNA, the damage
must have been massive and horrifying.
The images of their slaughtered friends
and teachers that the surviving children
witnessed must be traumatic, and they
will be carrying them for the rest of their
lives.
Annette Bowen , BethesdaThey should be made to see