Don't vote for Ross Perot?
Don't vote for Ross Perot if you're satisfied with George Bush's:
* Handling of the economy.
* Relationship with Congress.
* Choice of Dan Quayle as a running mate.
* Position on abortion counseling and abortions.
* Leadership in resolving trade issues with Japan.
* Commitment to American armed forces in Germany, Korea, and Japan.
* Selections for the Supreme Court.
* Urban leadership.
Don't vote for Ross Perot if you're satisfied with Bill Clinton's:
* Military record.
* Relationship with labor unions.
* Position on economic issues.
* Leadership and style of government.
And, don't vote for Ross Perot if you're convinced we need another politician doing things the same old ways! Anyway, Ross Perot can't win, can he?
Thomas G. Moore
In his May 12 piece about Justice Thomas, Lyle Denniston quotes some female professor as saying "that 'he picks a position and gloms onto it,' suggesting that they are positions that originate with someone else."
For a judge in a court of last resort to act otherwise would be a flagrant breach of the judicial process.
An appellate judge's legitimate role is to choose between competing positions as expounded by the advocates -- and by lower courts that have chosen between such positions.
A judge's role is to judge and not to impose novel theories, especially when such theories could not be sifted at a higher level.
Even the most crackpot decisions by the politicized Supreme Court in recent decades did not originate in the addled minds of left-wing judicial oligarchs. On the contrary, they adopted positions developed and advocated by poorly educated or cynical lawyers who fancied themselves to be "social engineers."
Real judicial scholars are extremely rare. The average lawyer, whether advocate or judge, never took a graduate degree in law and never took a single course in jurisprudence (the philosophy and science of right).
As for journalists, I have never seen anything to suggest that any of you have even the faintest notion of what a jurist is or does, or of what jurisprudence is and whence it comes.
Willis Case Rowe
On Safe Side
The juxtaposition of front page articles "Bush to ease pollution rules" and "World Bank pushes environmental overhaul" may not have been intended, but it says it all. President Bush is 180 degrees out of line with not just the country but the entire world. There is a limit to growth with finite resources and a limit to ecological viability within a poisoned closed system.
Corporations know that it is more expensive to clean up the toxic sites than it is to pollute in the first place. The shareholders who get that extra dividend now from eased pollution controls won't be around when the time comes to clean it all up, and neither will the board. They could care less: out of sight, out of mind.
President Bush is even worse. To have appointed William Reilly to the EPA and then go against everything he stands for is an insult to the people of this country who elected him four years ago with the promise of the "environmental president." Congress is no better, authorizing an incinerator to burn mustard gas and ++ then toxic materials on the banks of the Chesapeake Bay at Aberdeen.
They can argue that the data aren't in. But I argue that it is better err on the safe side with stricter controls, than to play it dangerously and find out too late that we were right in the beginning. It is a scientific fact that only dead-end species foul their own nest.
Save the Branches
The equation is simple, but you got it wrong in your editorial of May 19. Fewer Pratt library branches means more service for fewer Baltimoreans. More for fewer is a dangerous paradigm in modern society.
For many Baltimoreans, no library in the neighborhood means no library in their lives. For many Baltimoreans, no library in their lives means no books, no magazines, no newspapers, no access to information.
Which Baltimoreans would you care to deny in order to provide more service in fewer areas? Let's keep the Pratt library free for all.
Jane Ball Shipley
Cats Belong Indoors, not Out
A tragic and horrifying act occurred April 26 on Greenside Drive in Cockeysville. A cat was dumped into the road. It had been (as presumed by the veterinarian who put him to sleep) the victim of a satanic or other cult.
When I pulled over to assist the people who had already stopped, the cat was covered from the neck down with a towel but otherwise looked normal: It was alert and quiet, though it did not move.
Under the towel, the cat had been skinned from the chest down, one leg was broken and the other cut or torn off, its tail had been cut off and it had been castrated.