Letters to the Editor, June 10
What Matters? Legal Qualifications
Editor, Times-Dispatch: A. Barton Hinkle's column regarding judge Sonia Sotomayor was interesting and relevant, but like the other two on the same page, and most other media coverage, it failed to deal with the most important issue: her legal qualifications.
As a longtime lawyer (J.D. University of Chicago, 1949), and citizen activist, I have looked at her résumé, and she appears well-qualified. Other relevant considerations would be Bar Association recommendations, other non-political organization views, the geographic distribution of justices, etc.
Any experienced lawyer who might be nominated would have factors of personal background such as birthplace, family finances, religion, etc., and of law practice whether they be personal injury lawyers, defense counsel, corporate lawyers, civil rights lawyers, etc. -- all that would be part of the picture. Review of current and past Supreme Court justices will reveal such details, and that most went on to handle their judicial duties responsibly. The March 2009 American Bar Association Journal has a feature article on seven "Lions of the Trial Bar" who could all be criticised as influenced by their life and experience.
Urchie B. Ellis.
Richmond.
Warmongering Cartoons Embrace Irresponsibility
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Several recent editorial cartoons have portrayed President Obama as reacting blandly to possible threats from Iran and North Korea. One mocks the pen as an inadequate response to a missile.
Am I to assume from this sarcastic and belligerent tone that confrontation, invasion, or outright war would be the correct steps to take even before any attempt at dialogue or diplomacy? I suppose you are using as a model the brilliant philosophy of George W. Bush: "Shoot first and ask questions later."
Well, nothing would improve our moral standing in the world as much as putting behind bars those meretricious folks who let loose the elephant in the china shop.
By the way, since our military has been stretched, used, and abused to its limit, who would you like to have carrying out your dreamed attacks: the Salvation Army or the Boy Scouts?
Frederick Chiriboga.
Richmond.
GOP Should Change Its Philosophy, Too
Editor, Times-Dispatch: The Republican Party has embarked nationally on an endeavor to change its public image. Apart from the matter of image, however, one questions to what extent the Republican Party is capable of changing its position on major issues.
What we hear from Republican spokesmen is principally a condemnation of the new administration's deficit spending, our increasing national debt, and the expanded federal oversight and control over major economic institutions -- not a coherent set of policies to address our national concerns.
Doesn't the Republican Party recognize the breadth and magnitude of the problems bequeathed by the preceding administration, including an enormous federal debt, a collapsing financial system, a shrinking economy that has lost a total of 5.7 million jobs during the preceding 16 months, armed conflict on two fronts, and long-ignored and underfunded domestic concerns?
Republicans may fulminate against the resulting growth in national debt and the extension of federal oversight over financial institutions, but the increase in federal spending and involvement in the economy constitute actions that a responsible government would be obliged to take.
The times demand a vigorous and active federal government. Can we afford to return to the political agenda of systematically dismantling public programs as has occurred under Republican leadership? The Consumer Products Safety Commission, which has removed millions of imported toys from the market, had a staff in fiscal 2008 less than half that in 1973. Similarly, notwithstanding the surge in agricultural imports, the Food and Drug Administration had a smaller staff in 2008 than in 1994, when the Republicans took control of Congress. Do we really wish to return to policies that result in the debilitation of agencies and programs such as these? M.H. Wilkinson. Richmond.
Blame the Patients, Not the Doctor
Editor, Times-Dispatch: When Randall Terry stated George Tiller was "a mass murderer and horrifically he reaped what he sowed," he was ultimately condoning Tiller's slaying.
It is impossible to know how Tiller viewed his job; however, it is unlikely that he enjoyed performing abortions. This quote caused Tiller to appear to be a threat to the public.
Tiller was not hunting for babies to abort; women were coming to him out of desperation. Ultimately, it was the women making the decision, not Tiller.
Elly Call.
Richmond.
Reader Reactions
Ms.Wilkinson: The obligations of a responsible government do not include spending beyond its means because they are using other people’s money to do it. It is because all levels of government have become less responsible in this regard that we are in this fix. In your last paragraph you cite instances of reduction of government services, but somehow over that time the taxes kept rising… What’s wrong with this picture? The times do not demand a ‘vigorous and active federal government’. The government vigorously and actively promoted laws and policies that led to the debt, collapsing financial system and shrinking economy. They have TOO much power and they use it more and more for themselves at our expense - both parties. I’m tired of ‘philosophies’ and ‘agendas’. I want honest, principled and limited government.
It was easy to how Tiller viewed his job. He kept at it after terrorist threats and actions against his life and livelyhood. Who else would continue to provide a service to people that came to him against these odds. Look up the word terrorist and see where I am wrong. It was a terrorist group that killed him.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement