Judge can explain her position on guns
To the editor:
John Stites’ Tuesday letter, “Judge’s Second Amendment stance a problem,” erroneously claimed that Nevada District Judge Elissa Cadish’s answer to a 2008 questionnaire failed “to grasp a fundamental understanding.”
Mr. Stites may not like it, but every trial judge must follow the current state of federal law, including binding U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the nature and extent of constitutional rights. In 2008, Judge Cadish accurately described the state of federal law at the time and declared: “Of course, I will enforce the laws as they exist as a judge.”
Indeed, a subsequent Review-Journal editorial, “For District Court,” endorsed her because, “In her knowledge of the law, in her intellectual firepower and judicial demeanor, Elissa Cadish was a superlative appointment who voters can proudly retain.”
Judge Cadish’s recent letter to U.S. Sen. Harry Reid re-affirmed that she will follow current law, including Supreme Court Second Amendment precedents that were decided after the 2008 questionnaire.
If U.S. Sen. Dean Heller still has questions about Judge Cadish’s federal court nomination, he can allow her a hearing to explain.
Glenn Sugameli
Washington, D.C.
The writer, a staff attorney with Defenders of Wildlife, has since 2001 headed the Judging the Environment project on federal judicial nominations.
Gun laws
To the editor:
Concern over a 2008 questionnaire answer recently stalled District Judge Elissa Cadish’s elevation to the federal bench. The questionnaire asked, “Do you believe the individual citizen has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms?” Judge Cadish replied: “I do not believe there is this constitutional right. Thus, I believe that reasonable restrictions may be imposed on gun ownership in the interest of public safety. Of course, I will enforce the laws as they exist as a judge.”
Pointing to District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago — Supreme Court decisions that postdate her questionnaire answer — Judge Cadish recently told Sen. Reid that “if asked the same question today, I would say I believe that there is a constitutional right for individuals to keep and bear arms.”
If those developments surprised you, you’ll probably be floored to learn that late last week a Reagan-appointed federal judge upheld a gun ban in Illinois.
The Illinois law prohibits carrying loaded, operable firearms in public — basically the only way they are useful for immediate self-defense outside the home. The Illinois federal judge upheld the law, finding substantial state interest because “the State of Illinois has determined that, for purposes of protection of its residents, a citizen’s interest in carrying a firearm in public should be subject to the governmental interest in safeguarding the welfare of the public at large from the inherent dangers in a loaded firearm.”
The judge concluded “the bearing of a firearm outside the home is not a core right protected by the Second Amendment.”
Last month, federal judges in Maryland and North Carolina struck down similar laws.
Jack Burns
Las Vegas
Sign in
To the editor:
In response to Michael Dunegan’s Monday letter on requiring ID at the polls:
Please know that a form of identification is required to vote: your signature. Before voting, voters have to sign in, and that signature is then matched to the signature from the voter’s registration application. It’s a very effective, fair and not easily abused procedure.
Gloria Edrich
Las Vegas
Airline fee
To the editor:
In response to your Wednesday story, “Allegiant tacks on overhead bin fee”:
I loved the quote from Andrew Levy, president of Allegiant Travel Co., on the airline’s decision. He said it followed Allegiant’s “ongoing effort to develop an innovative new approach to travel. … In many cases the industry has seen our success and followed our lead.” Isn’t that like a purse snatcher/pickpocket/bank robber saying he was just trying to supplement his income?
Well, Mr. Levy is certainly not leading the pack with his latest “innovation.” Perhaps he should really show what a trendsetter he is by charging passengers to use the ramp to get to the plane. Call it a “passenger conveyance fee.”
Perhaps Allegiant could charge passengers an additional fee for using the seat belts. That could be assessed as a “passenger safety fee.”
Hey, the company could even charge a fee for using the washrooms. That would be a “passenger discharge fee.” Charge people with window seats a “passenger viewing fee.” The possibilities are endless when you’re being innovative and thinking outside the box.
A word of warning, though: Don’t try venturing into areas such as comfort, convenience and customer satisfaction.
Terry Cox
Henderson
No care
To the editor:
I’m no expert, but I think there’s a way around the ObamaCare individual mandate controversy: Recognize that individuals cannot choose to avoid illness or injury, but they can choose not to be treated.
Anyone who is willing to forgo medical care for the rest of his life should not be forced to buy health insurance.
That should make the Supreme Court’s job easy.
Subhash Garg
Las Vegas
