Letters to the Editor
Second-class citizens?
I trust that the president of the Bar Association of San Francisco (Jeff Bleich)
had not read Nat Hentoff's opinion column in the March 2003 edition prior to
promulgating his screed of condemning judges who associate themselves with the
Boy Scouts of America. Otherwise, one can conclude BASF needs leaders who understand
the First Amendment right to associate freely with groups which may not meet
their personal notions of political thought.
I suspect that adoption of the rule stridently espoused by the present association
leadership will inspire litigation of a nature already decided by the United
States Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, with the usual array
of profound amici curiae and a result vindicating the same First Amendment right
reiterated so palpably in Dale - unless, that is, judges are deemed second-class
citizens undeserving of freedom to associate with lawful, respected entities.
I am not a member of the Boy Scouts of America. Judges who are members are
impartial, objective and as scrupulously conscientious as judges of the sole
court which has barred membership in the Boy Scouts of America. It is disparaging
for a local bar president to allege otherwise.
Hon. Quentin L. Kopp
San Mateo County Superior Court
Freedom of belief
What if a judge belongs to a church that is against the death penalty, or against
abortion, or says homosexuality is a sin, or only allows women ministers, or
men ministers, or opposes divorce, or requires its members to wear certain identifying
apparel, or doesn't admit blacks or whites or orientals to membership, or believes
saluting the flag is wrong? And the list can go on and on.
According to Mr. Bleich's view, judges would have to be prohibited from belonging
to such churches, even though that church may represent the ethical, moral and
religious views of the judge.
It's about time we got back to our roots. Because we are a free country and
the First Amendment is very important, anyone can believe and speak and live
as that person wishes, so long as it is not outside the law. But let's please
stop trying to force that lack of belief or a belief in nothing, if you will,
on other people.
Let's concentrate on getting and keeping good, fair and capable judges and
quit worrying about what they believe or what charitable groups they belong
to or assist.
Sylvia L. Paoli
La Mirada
Hentoff missed the point
I am surprised and disappointed that Nat Hentoff has so entirely missed the
point about judges belonging to the Boy Scouts of America.
The issue is not that this organization must accept gay boys or men in its
membership. The point is, however, that a person who is a California judge must
choose between membership in the BSA or serving as a judge.
The questionable and probably unconstitutional "exception" for "youth
organizations" should not be permitted to hide the fact that for a judge
to participate in the BSA is clearly inconsistent with the requirement that
judges be free from the appearance of bias.
There is no First Amendment right for a judge to belong to an organization that
discriminates against gays any more than there is a right for a judge to belong
to the Ku Klux Klan.
Mr. Hentoff, with whom I often disagree but respect his powers of discernment,
has gone way off track with this one.
Philip J. Hoskins
Los Angeles
What authority?
It is amusing to see that you qualify Nat Hentoff as an "authority on the
First Amendment and the Bill of Rights" when his style of argument is the
simpleton's upside-down serving up of false analogy (NAACP, gay groups) seasoned
with a dash of abuse ("to force judges publicly to scorn . . ."),
just the sort of fast food constitutional expertise Hentoff's fellow media operator
Rush Limbaugh serves up to a giant audience hungry for such fare.
Unless in your book Limbaugh, too, is an "authority."
Channing Bates
Santa Barbara
Ahead of our time?
As I read of the travails of Eric Brooks in your February article (A year as
'the only one' at Boalt), I am reminded of a law school classmate of mine some
50 years ago. He was 6'6" tall, at that time the tallest person in the
law school. He attracted a lot of attention and possibly felt that, with or
without the dean's guidance, he would be the last person of that height to attend
our law school.
However, he bore up under the situation, studied hard and seemed to carry no
chip on his shoulder, and, as luck would have it, others of his height followed
him into our law school - even without a special program to promote diversity
in the height of its students.
I really can't figure it out. Was he, and our law school, ahead of or behind
their time?
Jack D. Scott
San Marino
Raspberry for Kuehl
Patricia A. Shiu writes (March) that she failed to credit State Sen. Sheila
Kuehl for authoring the Paid Family Care Leave Act.
Socialistic legislation such as this simply demonstrates how hostile the California
legislature and governor are to businesses in this state - especially small
businesses. These legislators do not, of course, have to live with the mindless
laws they enact - except to the extent that they inevitably result in diminished
tax revenues.
Can we send Ms. Kuehl and her minions to France?
Robert C. Wood
Escondido
|