6A

Opinion

FRIDAY FEBRUARY 19 2016

CENTREDAILY.COM

FACEBOOK.COM/CENTREDAILY TWITTER.COM/CENTREDAILY

EDITORIALS

Save the court

the right way

BY JAY AMBROSE

Go for it, Senate Republicans, but not the wrong

way. Aim to cling to the
legacy of the great, recently
departed Supreme Court
Justice Antonin Scalia, to
keep a decent balance on
the court, to save the Constitution from rips, tears
and a trash basket. But
dont imitate a president
forever turning his back on
Congress by turning your
back on him. Give him a
chance to hang up his arrogant ideological stridency
for once.
Its truly a hard time
right now. Scalia, besides
being a buoyant, loving,
good man, was one of the
best things to ever happen
to the court. Give him a
decision to write, even a
dissenting decision, and
what you got was something exceptionally lucid,
stylistically powerful and
profound in what it said. An
underlying message was
almost always opposition to
the love affair of liberals
with what they stupefyingly
and contradictorily called
a living Constitution.
What they meant by the
word living was that it
was actually burial time for
the centuries-old document
and birth time for their own
modernist attitudes, progressive values and maybe,
too, the public mood of the
moment. Occasionally the
Constitution needs amending, and theres an amending process available, but
these people essentially
aimed to replace it with
oligarchical moral superiority. They just didnt get it
that the Constitution is the
major means by which we
retain the essentials of our
republic, not least of all our
rights.
Heres what Scalia
taught: Court decisions
should be based on the
original meaning of the
Constitutions text. And
heres what he got: Quite a
few liberal academics,
judges and politicians gradually converting to his
view. It doesnt follow that
they thereby eschewed all
the old stuff, and the conservative Scalia wasnt
wholly pure, either. But he
was miles closer to the goal
than most liberals, and if
someone too far gone is
nominated to replace him,

the person should be rejected.

At least, however, the
nominees should be considered, and Senate Republicans are saying nothing
doing. They dont even
want to hold hearings or
any of the rest of it, but
why not? By interrogation
and examination of records
and more, they can decisively demonstrate that a
nominee is unfit if in fact
he or she is. Any accusation
of unfair play will be scooted aside. And President
Barack Obama can hardly
complain about a rejection
since, as a senator, he himself fought against two
nominees made by President George W. Bush, essentially saying he didnt
like their political ideas.
Among the many issues
that should be raised in
detail by the Republicans:
to what extent can a president rewrite federal laws or
extinguish state laws of his
own accord; does the person agree with the Democratic desire for new restrictions on free speech;
does the nominee think it
constitutionally permissible
for an organization to have
the legal power to require
dues from someone who
has refused to join, even if
it is a public employee
union?
There is plentiful precedent for rejecting nominees, even precedent for
leaving vacancies open for
long periods of time. There
would still be problems for
Republicans. With Scalia
gone, the court has one
fewer conservative, leaving
three conservatives, four
liberals and one person in
between. If there is a 4-4
tie in deciding cases, the
lower court ruling is affirmed, meaning conservatives lose on some major
matters and liberals on
others. These matters can
be reconsidered with a
nine-person court, however.
What we dont know is
who the next president will
be or even who will control
the Senate. Any party that
gets the presidency will
almost surely have more
court vacancies to fill in the
coming term. Whatever
happens, sticking up for the
Constitution right now
without establishing a liberal majority is worth doing
but it should be done in a
way that relays fairness and
conscientiousness.
Jay Ambrose is an op-ed
columnist for Tribune News
Service. Readers may email
him at speaktojay@aol.com.

234
Days without a state budget

JIM MORIN Miami Herald

Afghan interpreters
deserve visas now

BY TRUDY RUBIN

While the presidential

candidates fruitlessly argue
over how to handle immigration, there should be
no debate over welcoming
one category of immigrants:
Afghan interpreters who
risked their lives by working for U.S. soldiers and
civilian officials.
Indeed, Congress decided last year to provide an
additional 3,000 visas to
resettle such Afghans
beyond the 7,183 issued
since 2014, after years of
delays.
Yet an infuriating bureaucratic wrangle in
Washington threatens to
block many of these Afghans from reaching America and could get some of
them killed.
The problem has arisen
because, when increasing
the number of visa slots,
Congress changed the rules
to require that the applicants have worked for the
U.S. government for at
least two years, rather than
one. Its hard to imagine
why such a change was
made, since accompanying
American forces on patrols
for one year and being
threatened with death by
the Taliban as a consequence is surely as deserving of a visa as doing it
for two years.
But the story gets worse.
This new two-year requirement was intended by
Congress to only apply to
new applicants. Instead,
lawyers at the State De-

partment and Department

of Homeland Security interpreted some phrasing of
the new rule to mean it
should be applied retroactively. As a result, as
many as 3,000 Afghans
who were well into the
long, complex application
process could be disqualified, even though many of
them have already been
waiting for years for final
approval.
To understand how
heartless this is, let me tell
you the stories of two Afghan interpreters whose
last hopes are being destroyed because of this
bureaucratic maze.
Ali was a young Afghan
policeman who interpreted
for U.S. military forces for
16 months in dangerous
Zabul and Kandahar provinces.
If we hadnt helped U.S.
forces, how could they
have talked to people? he
asked me in a phone interview last week. We
thought our country would
get peaceful, but it got
worse. The Taliban got
more powerful, and the
Americans were leaving, so
many interpreters had to
go into hiding.
Because he had gone out
with U.S. Army patrols and
gathered intelligence on
the locations of improvised
explosive devices and Taliban double agents, he was
denounced by some locals
as a spy and a traitor.
Then the death threats
started coming.
One day masked men
came to the home of Alis
sister, while he was out.
They asked for him by
name, then burst into the
house and stabbed his
brother-in-law to death.
Ali, his sister and her
small children immediately
pooled their savings and
hired smugglers to transport them to neighboring

Iran. But in the crush of

people also escaping the
Taliban, Ali and his sister
were separated. Because
she didnt have a cellphone, he has no idea what
happened to her and her
kids.
Because Iran wasnt safe,
Ali had to keep going until
he reached Europe (he
didnt want the country
named), where he is living
in a crowded refugee center and worried sick about
his sister. Because he
didnt have adequate documentation, he faces deportation and Taliban reprisals
if he is sent home. His case
is being handled by lawyers
from the admirable New
York City-based International Refugee Assistance
Project, and he has glowing
recommendations from his
former U.S. military supervisors. But if the State Departments lawyers dont
revisit their interpretation
of Congress language, he
is as good as dead.
Then there is Dave, an
interpreter who worked
with U.S. Special Forces
from 2003 to 2011, going
out on patrols and gathering intelligence in some of
the most dangerous Afghan
regions. IRAP lawyers have
half a dozen letters from
his U.S. military bosses
about his bravery, sacrifice
and extraordinary service.
In hiding since 2013, Dave
has received Taliban death
threats by phone, and had
two (unsuccessful) attacks
on his home, where his
wife and two young children live. He is taking
medication for anxiety and
finds it impossible to sleep.
The former interpreter
has run out of savings and
sold most of his familys
possessions, but he cant
find work because of his
service with the U.S. military.
Whenever I am hired,
he told me by phone from
Afghanistan, as soon as
they find out I was an interpreter they fire me because
they know the Taliban will

target their company if I

work for them.
Yet, despite his long
service, Dave is blocked
from getting a U.S. visa
because of the new rules
and their retroactive application. One U.S. civilian
contractor who hired him
has folded, so he couldnt
get an employment verification letter; the second
contractor didnt accurately list all his dates of service, showing him as having worked just less than
two years. That sufficed
when IRAP lawyers first
submitted his visa application, but more than a year
later thanks to the bureaucrats he got a rejection because he lacked
two years of service.
This kind of bureaucratic
betrayal of Afghans who
helped Americans is not
only shameful, it is nuts.
Some U.S. legislators are
working on a bipartisan
letter to clarify congressional intent that the twoyear employment requirement apply only to new
applicants. The State Departments deputy spokesman, Mark Toner, says,
We are aware of concerns
over parts of the legislation
and are working with Congress to address them.
Lets hope thats true
with quick results, because
time is running short. The
longer the delay, the greater the risk of death to
these brave Afghans.
We did a lot, Ali told
me in a tone of desperation. All the solders we
worked with know how we
helped them.
How America rewards
or betrays that help
speaks volumes about who
we really are.

complain.
The first thing that
shocked me when I got to
Penn State was my students massive loans. How
could they ever pay them
off?
I was also stunned when
I visited inner-city Philadelphia by the boarded
shops, the iron grids protecting windows and desolate, litter-strewn streets.
How could Americans let
part of their country fall
into such disrepair?
I saw how hard Americans worked for very little
return. They had no paid
sick leave, no paid maternity leave, and the man who
mowed my lawn worked
three part-time jobs but still
could not pay for his heart
medicine.
Life in the USA reminded
me of a Monopoly game
where one player owns all
the expensive properties

and the others cant afford

the rent. I can see why the
young embrace Sanders
vision of the USA as a
country, like so many other
developed countries, that
takes care of all its citizens
instead of being winnertake-all.

Trudy Rubin is a columnist

and editorial board member
for The Philadelphia
Inquirer. Readers may write
to her at: Philadelphia
Inquirer, P.O. Box 8263,
Philadelphia, PA 19101, or
by email at trubin@
phillynews.com.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Facts on climate
change
In the 1960s, some scientists claimed that smoking
tobacco was safe. Later
these same scientists declared that nicotine was not
addictive, all despite overwhelming evidence that
they were wrong.
Today, more than 98
percent of all climate scientists agree that there is
anthropogenic climate
change, as does every firstworld government (except
the United States Congress). Now, the other 2
percent want their time in
the sun.
Enter The Institute of
Public Affairs (IPA), an
obscure Australian think
tank, and its skeptic scientists. IPA is a small antiregulatory group funded by
fossil fuel, timber, mining,
tobacco and pesticide com-

panies. These companies

use IPA studies to fight
environmental and workplace safety regulations.
Apparently, they have recently published a book
denying climate change.
What took them so long?
One book, written by the
fossil fuel industry, hardly
negates decades of rigorous
research by thousands of
climate-related scientists.
This includes Michael
Mann, whose work is only
controversial because of
scientifically dubious misinformation released by
groups like the IPA.
The world has warmed
over 1 degree Celsius in the
past century. That rise
mirrors increases in CO2
emissions. The poles are
melting, and the oceans are
rising. We can measure
these things with an advanced scientific instrument known as a yardstick.

Be a skeptic, if you like,

its your right. Light up a
smoke, buy a house at the
beach and blow off the
sunscreen. Just please remember, facts are true,
whether you believe them
or not.
Tim Dunleavy,
Patton Township

Poor leadership
I cant believe the lack of
leadership Katie McGinty
showed by leaving her
position in the governors
office in the midst of the
budget impasse. After first
working on an irresponsible
proposed budget with major tax increases, now shes
running away from the
difficult task of defending
her proposals.
Pennsylvania needs actual leadership in the U.S.
Senate, not someone who
just runs for Senate as soon
as they see an opportunity

to put themselves ahead of

others. Katie McGinty
clearly looks for the easy
way out of situations instead of the best path for
Pennsylvania.
Nicole DuGan, State College

Sanders vision
David Brooks cannot
understand (CDT, Feb. 15)
why the young are flocking
to Bernie Sanders.
I lived in Bernies
world before l came to the
USA. The British government paid my university
fees and I had my children
free on the National
Health, which also gave me
pre- and post-natal care. I
immigrated to Western
Australia where my children enjoyed another single-payer health system
and were educated free at
the state university. We
probably paid higher taxes,
but I never heard anyone

Mary Gage, State College

YOUR OPINION

Letters policy: The Centre Daily

Times accepts original letters of up
to 250 words. They must include the
writers name, address and
telephone number. A writer is
limited to one letter a month, and
letters are subject to editing.
Send letters to cdtletters@
centredaily.com; visit the opinion
page at CentreDaily.com and click on
Send us your letters; mail them to
Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 89,
State College, PA 16804; or fax them
to 238-1811.