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

•••

I read the portion of the Reader's Write section from last week about Donald Trump, "The way his supporters see it" (Oct. 25). As an emotionally charged and illogical liberal voter, I'm willing to admit to not being enough of an economic expert or policy wonk to make any opposing statements similar to those that bring these authors to their conclusions. There are, however, some things I feel I can conclude just from harking back to high school civics and common sense. First of all, the president can propose fiscal policy until he turns purple, but none of it happens unless the legislative branch — Congress — passes the bills. Second, we have a capitalist economy that is not, by definition, directly controlled by the federal government or the president, right? Lastly and rhetorically speaking: How can anyone believe that the economy is so simple that any economic rise or fall that happens after Jan. 20 and lasts for the four years following can only be directly attributed to the one individual who just walked across the White House threshold? I'm not going to base my vote on either presidential candidate's fiscal policy proposals based on tired party-based rhetoric and therefore equivalent to pandering political pablum.

Speaking of oversimplification, as for border policy, this has also been a decadeslong intractable problem for administrations going back to the Reagan years! It's not honest to lay this problem at the feet of either the Republicans or Democrats, let alone one president or another. Once again, it's Congress that has neglected to pass any meaningful legislation for long-term solutions. Presidential executive orders targeting border issues have never resulted in any real solutions since they are primarily political sideshows and can be revoked by the next White House occupant. Recent bipartisan legislation attempting to move a long-term solution the right direction was killed in favor of presidential politics and promises of more heavy-handed executive short-term solutions.

It's emotionally satisfying to latch onto simple, black-and-white, cause-and-effect solutions. This back-and-forth, blaming the other side for any bad outcomes and taking credit for any good ones won't sustain a working democratic society. Real-world problems don't always respond to these approaches, however we might wish it to be so.

Connie Clabots, Brooklyn Center


JUDICIAL RACES

Retain Justice Procaccini

As former associate justices of the Minnesota Supreme Court, we are deeply familiar with the work of the court and the qualifications and experience of its members. The court rightly enjoys a reputation as a professional institution that follows the rule of law, deliberates thoughtfully, writes carefully and often reaches unanimous decisions. To maintain that reputation, we recommend that Minnesotans retain incumbent Associate Justice Karl Procaccini.

His credentials are outstanding. After graduating with high honors from Harvard Law, Procaccini clerked for two Minnesota federal judges. Then he practiced law at a highly rated firm, appearing regularly in both federal and state courts. For five years, he served as general counsel to the governor. Procaccini has performed well in his initial year of service on the court.

Frequently, nonpartisan judicial races are found on the back of the ballot. But they are no less important than the political races on the front. We urge voters to educate themselves on the judicial incumbents and their challengers. In the case of Associate Justice Karl Procaccini, the choice is clear. We will be voting to retain him.

This letter was signed by former Associate Justices Alan Page, Barry Anderson, David Lillehaug, Esther Tomljanovich, Helen Meyer, James Gilbert, Paul Anderson and Sam Hanson.


•••


The side-by-side comparison of judicial candidates' backgrounds published recently ("Few state judicial races are in play," Oct. 7), is a useful starting point to help inform the judgment of the electorate in the upcoming election. While the contested judicial races are few, they are important. Few people seek out opportunities to interact with the justice system, but those who encounter it benefit by the assurance that the judge assigned to their case is experienced, fair and respectful of the citizens who come before them.

The Academy of Certified Trial Lawyers of Minnesota is an organization consisting of experienced and board-certified trial attorneys and is balanced by members from both the criminal and civil litigation who practice on either side of each case. For the last several decades we have conducted a merit-based analysis of each contested judicial election.

We look at the merits of each candidate through the lens of legal practitioners on either side of each case, and our recommendations are thus not designed to favor one side or the other, but to assure that the scales of justice are balanced so that the process of justice may be in place for all.

This year, the ACTLM has endorsed the following candidates. At the appellate courts: Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, Justice Karl Procaccini, and Judge Diane Bratvold. In the Second Judicial District, Judge Timothy Mulrooney. In the Fourth District, Matthew Frank. In the Sixth Judicial District, Shawn Reed, and in the Tenth District, Helen Brosnahan.

Frequently our friends and neighbors will ask their lawyer acquaintances for whom they should vote. Hopefully these endorsements by a neutral group of certified courtroom experts will assist voters in evaluating the information on the candidates and making informed choices.

Please don't leave your ballot on judicial races empty. Your vote matters.

Wil Fluegel, Minneapolis

The writer is dean of the Academy of Certified Trial Lawyers of Minnesota.


JOE TEIRAB

Laudable service, flawed campaign

We're a couple of retired U.S. Navy commanders with a combined 57 years in uniform. We've seen great leaders, abysmal leaders and many in between during our service to America.

When assessing candidates for political office, leadership traits, including character, integrity, courage, commitment to the highest ideals, and respect for fellow citizens are all core elements of our decisionmaking process.

We applaud Second District Republican candidate Joe Teirab's Marine Corps service, but we also see concerning flaws in key character traits that matter to us when it comes to elected office ("Key concerns for Second District voters," editorial, Oct. 18).

As he is a former federal prosecutor, we're confused as to why Teirab has sought former President Donald Trump's backing. Trump has been convicted of 34 felony counts and remains charged with a litany of other crimes. Thus, Teirab's willingness to "bend the knee" to Trump gives us pause.

Trump has also routinely disparaged military service and veterans, including service members who made the ultimate sacrifice in combat.

What was it Teirab learned in his Marine Corps service that the former president's words and behavior are something he wishes to emulate? Why would he actively seek support from someone who is incapable of displaying the leadership qualities all officers and enlisted personnel respect, let alone someone who regularly dishonors veterans?

We've voted for both parties throughout our lives. This year, Teirab doesn't get our vote.

Cmdr. (LDO) John Hibbard, Northfield, Minn.

Cmdr. Jon Olson, Webster, Minn.


SENATE RACE

A more serious candidate wasn't wanted

I always appreciate how the Minnesota Star Tribune arranges the editorial pages and the contributions of its editorial staff, but Sunday's "Our U.S. Senate race deserved a better challenger" missed the mark. The Star Tribune asks the Republican Party to provide a more serious candidate for the U.S. Senate in future races. I believe the paper misunderstood the intention and desire of the Republican Party in Minnesota. It ran the candidate it wanted and he (in this case) represents the type of person the Republican Party wants in the Senate. So, when the Editorial Board finished with the words of candidate Royce White, it should have realized that what White states is what the Republican Party of Minnesota believes. Why else would it have nominated him for the most influential office it has an opportunity to fill in this election cycle? To quote Maya Angelou: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." We don't need to wait for another election cycle to see where the Republicans stand; White and the Republican Party of Minnesota are showing us now.

Alan Briesemeister, Delano