Chronicle's Letters the Ed Reveal its Right-wing Undercurrent

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Politics and the blocking of judicial nominees

Editor -- In his article, "Dems' filibustering of judicial nominations is just politics" (Insight section, May 15), Tony Quinn contended that Democrats concerned about judicial appointment of radical conservatives are simply playing politics. He is misguided.

Washington governs only by consent of the governed. If controversial judges from either pole of the political spectrum are thrust on the bench by a simple majority, their rulings will be viewed with a hostility that erodes that consent.

The Senate filibuster rule for judicial appointments is a good thing, and it has survived since the 19th century for a good reason. Judges are appointed for life -- therefore their appointments deserve a higher standard of acceptability to the greatest number of Americans.

A supermajority of 60 senators guarantees that politics alone cannot determine a judicial nomination.

If Republicans go ahead with their "nuclear option" (and change this rule), the real victim in the long run will be the goodwill of the governed for the government.

GARETH LOY
Corte Madera


Editor -- The article by Republican political analyst Tony Quinn presented little to convince me the Democrats' filibustering on judicial nominations is just politics. I believe they are responding with concern and speaking on behalf of constituents who care deeply about decisions that are likely to affect our country for decades.

I urge all Americans to get up to speed on the "nuclear option" vote planned soon by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

Constitutional principles of checks and balances should be upheld and this nuclear option opposed. The interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is at stake, as is our federal judiciary.

JANET TAGGART
Half Moon Bay


Editor -- Would you kindly have Tony Quinn, co-editor of a "nonpartisan" analysis of legislative and congressional elections, explain the difference between Democrats using the filibuster to stop seven of President Bush's judicial nominations from receiving up-or-down votes, and the Republicans using their majority status to deny 60 judicial nominations of President Clinton up-or-down votes in the Senate?

And why was it OK for Republicans to use a filibuster to stop President Lyndon Johnson's appointment of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas as chief justice? Is it possible the Republicans were just playing politics in filibustering to block Fortas?

JOSEPH M. NERI
San Francisco


Ex-speaker's version

Editor -- The Chronicle's editorial, "When secrets can be deadly" (May 10), criticizes my role as Assembly speaker in the 2001 legislative effort to deal with secret settlements of lawsuits involving defective products and hazardous waste.

Your editorial claims that I blocked a floor vote on this issue in order to cater to big business. That just was not the case.

On June 7, 2001, I stood on the Assembly floor and asked my colleagues to support then-Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg's AB36, a bill that, at the time, was a mirror image of the Senate measure referred to in your editiorial.

I argued that "the fundamental issue is to protect the consumers" in cases where a secret settlement could hurt or kill someone.

I fought hard for consumers to ensure that AB36 had sufficient votes to pass on the Assembly floor, which it did.

The simple fact is that when the Senate measure reached the Assembly floor, I could not persuade my collegues, who accommodated me with regard to AB36, to vote for the amended Senate version of the bill.

I certainly wish we could have been successful in securing the votes, but that is for another day.


ROBERT M. HERTZBERG
Former Assembly speaker
D-Los Angeles


Letters should be signed

Editor -- As a frequent letter writer, I must disagree with the suggestion by Raymond Tittmann (Letters, May 15) that The Chronicle accept letters from people using pseudonyms. Tittman claims that it would enhance free speech by shielding writers from threats and harassment.

But free speech does not mean consequence-free speech. I believe people should be willing to stand behind what they write or say and expect to be held accountable for the veracity of their claims.

One of the reasons the public has such a low opinion of the news media is the incessant use of anonymous sources. A perfect example is the current Newsweek fiasco. After thousands riot, hundreds are injured and 15 are killed, Newsweek acknowledges that it erred in reporting that interrogators in Guantanamo flushed a copy of the Koran down the toilet.

It turns out that the source of the account made a mistake. But that source walks away unscathed with reputation intact, since we will never know who it was.

BILL McGREGOR
Berkeley


Editor -- I completely disagree with Raymond J. Tittmann's defense of using "pen names" when writing letters to the editor.

Anyone who doesn't have the courage to sign his or her own name to attacks on other people, or their ideas, is a coward.

BRUCE MARTIN
Mill Valley