RSS Feed
 |
|
|||||
|
Judges representing both major parties reach bad decisions Mr. Labriola’s recent letter in the Post regarding the editorial "I didn’t vote for that your honor" is less an attempt to offer solutions than pure politics. The truth in his letter is that it’s judges he does not agree with that are "threats to democracy." The original Massapequa Post editorial was generalized but Mr. Labriola felt the need to turn genuine problems with the courts into a partisan issue. Mr. Labriola would do well to present all the facts if he honestly wants good judges. Unfortunately Mr. Labriola purposely neglected to mention that while Judge Reinhardt was appointed by Carter, the Senior Ninth Circuit Court Judge Alfred Goodwin was appointed by Nixon and Judge Fernandez was appointed by George HW Bush. Judge Reinhardt does not work alone and rulings require a Nixon appointee or a Bush appointee to form the majority opinion. The Ninth Circuit Court is often over-ruled but it is also one of the largest courts and dominated by Republican appointees. To single out Judge Reinhardt and not mention the backgrounds and names of the other judges on the court is dishonest at best. In the case of Judge Henderson and the temporary injunction on Prop.209, he based his ruling on precedents and the fact is that the injunction did not stop local agencies and state colleges from continuing their process going forward. Judge Henderson used precedent not his own ideology and did not "over-turn" the voters will. These are facts Mr. Labriola would find prohibitive to his argument. We should expect better of elected officials like Mr. Labriola. I am quite sure that if we were to look at the records of all judges of every political affiliation we would see outrages and those need to be addressed. If we want judges that better serve the people we should not do it in a partisan fashion as Mr. Labriola does. The title of the original editorial "I Didn’t Vote For That Your Honor" is apt since if we want to mention as Mr. Labriola does egregious cases of "disenfranchising voters" we can look to the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore which placed Bush in the White House with complete disregard for the majority of the country. Judge Scalia went so far as to say any recount would cause "irreparable harm" to Bush’s presidency when that outcome was still in question pending the counting. The single recount that was never completed was mandated by Florida law and relied on the "intent of the voter." Mr. Labriola should find the Supreme Court ruling unacceptable but because he liked the outcome, the personal agendas of the court majority were fine. A couple of years ago Texas Congressman Tom Delay wanted to use the threat of impeachment and impeachment itself to get rid of any judge that he considered "liberal." So much for the judiciary being an independent branch of government. Does Mr. Labriola agree with Tom Delay? Does Mr. Labriola want an independent, balanced judiciary or one that agrees with his views? From the tone of his letter, I expect the latter is true. John Rennhack N. Massapequa The writer is the Democratic candidate for the 12th L.D. in Nassau County
|
for larger version       |
||||
