Rep. Daniel Meuser,

I appreciate a lot of the good work you have done through the years for your constituents and Pennsylvanians. However, I believe your endorsement of the amicus brief to the U. S. Supreme Court was an unequivocal mistake. You owe your constituency as well as all Pennsylvanians an apology.

I have been a Republican since registering to vote at in 1980 age 18. Then, Republicans were identifiable by core policy principles states rights, support for family values including the rights of the unborn, fiscally responsible economic policy and a strong military supporting the expansion of liberty across the globe.

My father-in-law was a senior aide to Sen. Arlen Spector, managing both the Intelligence Committee and Veterans affairs for more than 20 years. I understand the complexities of big decisions. I also understand the difficulty communicating in a world with social media and contrarian experts who can pick apart the best intentions of good people.

What I cannot understand is your support for the disenfranchisement of Pennsylvania voters. Your explanation that the amicus brief merely states our belief that the broad scope of the various allegations and irregularities . . . merits careful, timely review by the Supreme Court is misleading and disingenuous.

The election was held weeks ago, and there hasnt been a single case filed that has been judged to present evidence of fraud or misconduct that could even remotely portend to overturn the results in any state - despite millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours invested by President Trumps advocates and attorneys. The relief sought by the case is to move the choice of electors from the voters to the state legislature. We can post, tweet and parse words all we want, this effort represents a giant leap from democracy to authoritarianism, and history will judge it as nothing less.

Our party is no longer the party of Lincoln or Reagan. Politics are now rife with mean-spirited partisan bickering, which has accelerated since the scandal of President Clinton and simultaneous explosion of electronic media. Two significant and demoralizing aspects of the Trump administration have elevated this trend to a level that undermines the future of our country.

The first started with President Clinton and Newt Gingrich and has been brought to its natural conclusion with Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham. Our elected representatives have thrown out the rule book. There is an acceptance that the ends justify the means.

I am delighted with the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. However, I couldnt convince a child of any consistent logic behind the refusal to consider Justice Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court when contrasted with the rush to confirm Justice Barrett.

It is the epitome of hypocrisy. When things get complicated, the Golden Rule is a pretty good measuring stick for how to proceed. Would you be OK with Democrats applying the same logic? Could you fault President-elect Biden for stacking the court? Mercifully, he seems disinclined to do so at the moment.

The second and more egregious threat has been President Trumps efforts to undermine democracy. In How Democracies Die, Levitsky wrote of key principles that undermine Democracies including,

Is any of this familiar? While there may be traces of such things in earlier elections, President Trump has amplified all of the above. He did so after winning the election in 2016. In 2020, he unapologetically campaigned on a theme that the only legitimate outcome of the presidential election was a Donald Trump victory. He insisted any other outcome was fraudulent. He used every governmental lever available to try manufacture that result.

What is truly amazing is not that a few areas of isolated election irregularities have been identified, but that there has been so little evidence of fraud. This should give Americans hope.

I recommend reading Man of the House: The Life and Political Memoirs of Tip ONeill. It is an account of how effectively a Hamiltonian government can work. Political disagreements did not create mortal enemies. Politicians with different views were capable of sitting behind closed doors and doing what is best for the country, not necessarily themselves, and sometimes not even for their own constituents. They recognized compromise was often best for their constituents in the long run.

There is no argument that the Texas attorney general has a legitimate interest in overturning the Pennsylvania election results or that of any other state. That any Pennsylvanian, much less an official re-elected by the exact process, would endorse such a suit is indefensible.

One can twist logic, but one cannot evade the fact that you supported a legal challenge to free and fair elections in Pennsylvania. This is my opinion, but it is also the determination of the U.S. Supreme Court. Even Justices Alito and Thomas stated they would not have granted relief. History will similarly judge those who joined you in support of the amicus brief.

I do respect the very good work you have done through the years, but I encourage you to publicly acknowledge and apologize for your support of the amicus brief to overturn the election results in our state.

Dr. Anthony T. Petrick is a professor of surgery and lives in Danville, Pa.

Go here to see the original:

Rep. Meuser and legislators who tried to overturn free and fair elections should apologize to Pennsylvanians - pennlive.com