Editor’s Note: Thank you for sending comments on our news, policy, and opinion — we review every one of them. Here are a few reader perspectives, which don’t necessarily reflect those of The Patriot Post.

Re: “The Filibuster Is at Stake”

There is no greater moral issue than the right to life. Loss of the filibuster would almost guarantee this nation codifies the murder of the most helpless, most silent of humans in the world. But wait, there’s more! Loss of the filibuster would allow Dems to stack the courts, especially the Supreme Court. Dems will flood the courts with judges proven to hate liberty and love dictating policies that favor socialism. I cannot recall in history, and it’s hard to imagine, a more consequential midterm election. But remember: Donald Trump is NOT on the ballot this November. Life, liberty, and justice for all — including generations born and unborn — are on the ballot. —Missouri

Re: “Why the Left Hates Constitutional Originalism”

Our Constitution reflects the philosophy of the Founders, shared by MANY Americans today, that governmental power should be as close to the people as possible, not wielded by a remote national government, as was the case in so much of imperial Europe in the 18th century. The Left in the U.S. simply wants a philosophically uniform national society, which of course reflects its views of life. We’ll find out in less than two months where we are headed. —California

Re: “A Climate Reality Check”

What happens if we don’t “save the planet”? Absolutely nothing. Yes, some life forms will likely be harmed. Some will even go extinct. But that’s been happening since life first evolved. It seems anything can be interpreted by environmental extremists as being due to human carbon emissions, and there’s the big lie. Politicians realized that by making carbon dioxide a pollutant, they could tax it. Eventually, the cost will be passed on to the consumer. The reality is that after the first 200 ppm, CO₂ has very little effect. —Washington

I’d like to know how the Dems can say the world will end in “12 years” every four years since 1964 and not get called out on it. I’d like to know why, if the world is going to end in 12 years, California is going to mandate EVs by 2035. —Nevada

Re: “Roberts’s Rules of Court Legitimacy”

Justice Roberts rewrote a section of the (un)Affordable Care Act to make it pass constitutional muster. In doing so, he made enactment of the law itself unconstitutional, as it was no longer the law passed by both houses and signed into law. What needed to happen was for the bill to go back through the proper legislative process, voted on by both houses of Congress, and, if passed, go back to President Obama’s desk to be signed. That, of course, was not about to happen, as the GOP had by then taken control of the House. Can “legislating from the bench” be made any clearer than this? —Washington

Even SCOTUS itself is not entirely insulated from the will of the public, nor should it be. If enough of the public wants something badly enough, and consistently enough over time, our Constitution contains the process for its own amendment, which would place a question beyond the reach of even a unanimous Supreme Court. The problem is that the Left has always been unwilling to do the hard lifting to persuade the great unwashed masses of the rightness of its own elite opinions. Leftists and too many of our fellow citizens are uninterested in the integrity of the process and are willing to achieve their outcomes by any means available, without regard to morality, ethics, or law, and despite any damage to our nation in the long run. —Georgia

In the Navy, I swore an oath to serve, protect, and defend the Constitution, just like every elected and appointed official in the federal government. Today, many of them criticize the Supreme Court for doing its job. Justice Roberts followed his oath and because it is his job, the Court made a decision that did not take away a right. The Court sent the decision back to the states because 50 years ago the Court elevated a privilege to be a right that did not exist in the Constitution. All of these liberals are whining and complaining they had something removed. They did not. The decision went back to the states, and if they don’t like it, take it up with the state legislatures! —Illinois

Re: “The Tyrant Is a Slave to His Own Desires”

“The situational design that has pitted Left and Right against one another is not irreversible. We, as a people, need to learn how to talk to one another once again.” That would be nice except that it has never been a part of leftist ideology. One can still respectfully argue with Democrats, but not those who are dedicated to destroying (a.k.a. “fundamentally transforming”) our constitutional republic. They only respond by shouts, threats, and even physical attacks to silence other views. —North Carolina

Re: “Another Duke ‘Hate Crime’ Hoax”

This needs to stop. This woman lied, filed false reports, slandered another person, and the list could go on. She should be prosecuted by law and at the very least lose her spot on the team. Why do they want to continue this crap? Are George Floyd, Bubba Wallace, Jussie Smollett, and now Rachel Richardson the heroes of the black community? Why not Barack Obama, Sidney Poitier, Denzel Washington, ICE-T, Morgan Freeman, etc.? Why idolize liars and thugs? —West Virginia