Texas
Latest Coverage
See all articles
Letters - Dallas City Hall, Cornyn, Paxton, Supreme Court
Appreciating Dallas City Hall
Re: “A legal thrilla on Marilla? Maybe! Former city attorneys fight Dallas City Hall to save Dallas City Hall,” by Robert Wilonsky, Friday Opinion.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Dallas City Hall – how magnificent, beautiful and powerful! And now iconic! Thank you, I. M. Pei. Thank you, Robert Wilonsky. Thank you, Pulitzer Prize winner Mark Lamster. Godspeed, attorney Chris Bowers!
Martha-Allison Blewer, Coppell
Praise for a columnist
I wonder if readers of The Dallas Morning News have read with interest, as have I, the recent opinions expressed by columnist Robert Wilonsky. On May 14: “Awaiting the most Dallas fix for what ails Bachman Lake.” On May 15: “A legal thrilla on Marilla? Maybe! ,” and on May 16: “Downtown’s beloved whale mural is gone forever.”
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
In each of these editions, Wilonsky has brought attention to how easily landmarks can be ignored and erased in the name of progress and how promises can soon be forgotten.
Dallas News Logo
Don't let Google decide who you trust.
Make Dallas News a preferred source so your search results prioritize writing by actual people, not AI.
Add Preferred Source
I would just like for Wilonsky to know that I am one reader who appreciates and applauds his opinions. Thank you, sir.
Claude Caffee, Honey Grove
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Cornyn’s office helped
Sen. John Cornyn’s constituent office has assisted us with two federal agency issues. They were responsible for resolving the issues in our favor when the bureaucrats would not respond.
The one time I contacted the attorney general’s office for assistance, the office gave no assistance. Ken Paxton likes headlines but does little for constituents in Texas.
Kathleen Penak, Grapevine
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Who’s more unfit?
In the hotly contested U.S. senator race in Texas between incumbent John Cornyn and challenger Ken Paxton, right-wing GOP conservatives claim Cornyn isn’t fit for reelection because of his recent bipartisan efforts to allow increased scrutiny on background checks for young gun buyers and increased mental health funding. This after two mass murder events in Texas.
According to Paxton, Cornyn’s involvement in the gun bill makes him appear treasonous for abandoning the GOP.
So, Paxton claims Cornyn is unfit for office. Really?
Paxton, may I remind everyone, was infamous for his scandal-plagued tenure as the Texas attorney general. To some, Paxton represents everything that some value in MAGA and the GOP. To me, he’s rotten to the core – unfit for office. It is flabbergasting that Paxton is even qualified to be a candidate for public office.
Will Texans get this right? Go vote!
Guy Mercurio, Dallas
Some advice for Crockett
Even though she’s not a candidate, U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett is uniquely situated to turn Texas blue.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Understandably, she is endorsing Colin Allred in his upcoming runoff against U.S. Rep. Julie Johnson because of his voting rights record. She also has announced her plans to start the leadership of PAC FIRE (Fuel Individual Rights Everywhere). But that is not enough.
Only by campaigning fiercely for James Talarico can she manifest the unity she emphasized in her concession speech.
“We must remain united because this is bigger than any one person,” she said. “This is about … getting America back on track.”
Crockett, with her toughness, her willingness to speak out and her lawyerly mind, can do just that. She energizes Texans in a way that no one else can. Not even Barack Obama.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Seeing her join forces with Talarico offers hope and teaches Democrats a lesson: If they nurse old wounds, Americans lose.
Barbara Chiarello, Austin
The Johnson amendment
It’s time to roll back the Johnson amendment, which is a provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501(c) (3) nonprofit organizations — including charities, educational institutions and religious organizations — from endorsing or opposing political candidates.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Churches regularly endorse, host and support political candidates with absolutely no pushback or consequences. So, let’s make it OK to do so while at same time repealing the provision that religious organizations do not need to file a 990-tax return — the charitable equivalent of an Individual 1040 return.
That’s right. These megachurches with pastors worth over $100 million don’t have to file a tax return like every other charitable organization. And then we wonder why there’s a church scandal that comes to light on a regular basis?
Let’s drop the Johnson Amendment and give churches the opportunity to show us what they really believe in and where the money actually goes.
Steve Hayes, Southlake
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Supreme Court playing politics?
Re: “Supreme Court preserves access to widely used abortion pill, while lawsuit plays out,” online story.
As much as I want to believe that the Supreme Court truly doesn’t play politics, its decision to send this case back to the lower court smacks of precisely that. The current administration did not weigh in on this with the court, but clearly didn’t want this oh-so-fraught issue to impact the mid-term elections.
The court’s decision certainly accomplished that by kicking the can down the road. I would bet my retirement that this issue will be back on the court’s agenda after those elections, maybe as early as 2027.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
In spite of the fact that the majority of Americans, both Republican and Democrat, supports reproductive rights, the current courts seem dedicated to removing all such bodily autonomy from women.
Pregnant women currently fall into the same category as children and mentally disabled people in that all three groups lack total agency over their healthcare issues.
It seems that perceived personhood of a fetus counts more than the actual personhood of the woman carrying said fetus or, in many cases, the children she likely already has that she can barely afford to feed, clothe and educate.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Challenge to the Supreme Court: Please, please prove me wrong.