Court ruling on vaccine mandate, Texas synagogue attack and Jan. 6

High court mandate ruling hypocritical

The science is clear: Masks and vaccines save lives. Mandates are necessary to combat those who reject science and those who are misinformed. But when it comes to President Joe Biden’s worker safety mandate for vaccinations and masks, the Supreme Court somehow says it is illegal ["Top court halts Biden big-biz vaccine rules," News, Jan. 14].

What is hypocritical is that the Supreme Court’s protocols are stricter than Biden’s mandate. To appear before the court, one must have a negative PCR test the day before appearing.

Biden only wanted weekly tests for the unvaccinated. To appear before the court, one must wear, not just any mask but a KN95 or N95. One also is told to wear it properly over the mouth and nose. Biden had no such stipulations.

In the courtroom, only one argument at a time is permitted, so everyone else must wait in the attorneys’ lounge and must wear a mask at all times unless eating.

The Supreme Court’s stricter protocol, which is another word for mandate, was last issued on Dec. 10, 2021, almost a month before the justices rejected Biden’s mandate. The Supreme Court makes sure the justices are protected but not the American worker.

— Michael McBride, Moriches

I was drawn to the photo published Jan. 14 of protesters against vaccine and mask mandates during the summer. One sign caught my eye. The one saying, "No Mandates! No masks! No vaccines!" That sign left out an important detail — no stopping COVID-19!

Do these protesters want the American people to continue to get sick and possibly die? Do they want us to be distracted while they attempt to destroy democracy? Don’t they realize that most of the people now dying of COVID are their unvaccinated fellow protesters?

— Richard Lester, East Setauket

H.S. mask position has wrong message

I read with disbelief and frustration about the lack of mask compliance at Connetquot H.S. ["School mask situation is ‘out of control,’ " News, Jan. 20].

Masks are mandated to be worn inside schools by the governor. How dare the school administration ignore this mandate. How dare the administration not support teachers, who are risking their health and trying to enforce this rule.

Do school administrators and boards of education implement only rules that are without controversy? What message does this send to the student body? If you don’t like a rule, just ignore it.

Science has shown that the proper use of masks cuts down on the transmission of COVID- 19. Connetquot should enforce the state mandate.

— Harriette Gold, Westbury

Jan. 6 committee latest to seek truth

I find it remarkable that any elected official would refuse to appear and give testimony before the Jan. 6 committee ["Getting on track as a civil society," Letters, Jan. 12]. What exactly is the problem?

The more information the committee gathers, the more accurate their conclusions can be. The more facts assembled through testimony, written statements, emails and texts, the clearer the picture emerges as to why it happened and who is responsible.

If people had refused to testify before the Knapp Commission, formed in 1970, how would police corruption have come to light and subsequent laws written to deal with it?

What conclusion would the public have come to if someone refused to testify before the 9/11 commission?

If Republicans or Democrats had refused to testify before the Greenspan Commission, formed in 1982, simply because of their party affiliation, how would the beneficial changes to Social Security have come about?

Democracies are based on facts, not hearsay; on truth, not lies; and on our elected officials making decisions based on the greater good, not the retention of personal power.

— Bill Etze, Manorville

Attack in Texas wasn’t just about ‘religion’

I am glad the Texas synagogue situation resolved the way it did, with the hostages safe ["Rabbi describes escape," News, Jan. 18]. While I am also glad that clergy of all faiths voiced prayers for a peaceful resolution, I am disappointed by those who characterized this event as an "attack on religion."

Witnesses to the live services stream told police and the FBI that the hostage taker was spewing antisemitic venom. He did not go into a church, mosque or a Buddhist temple. He went into a synagogue with the expressed goal of freeing an antisemitic comrade. His actions were not an attack on any religious group other than Jews. Everyone, including the FBI, needs to recognize that.

— Josh Kardisch, East Meadow