The Missouri Plan is no panacea

To the editor:

Ed Vogel’s May 24 story indicated that Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, and Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, are pushing Senate Joint Resolution 2, which would adopt the “so-called Missouri Plan system of appointing District Court judges and Supreme Court justices.”

What would qualify the selection committee? Will they be State Bar buddies and good old boys or just ordinary lawyers from the biggest and most influential law offices?

Mr. Vogel continues: “A judge getting less than 60 percent of the vote would not be retained.”

What would be the basis for retention? Name recognition? Constant sound bites paid for with a healthy campaign fund? Why not a scorecard detailing the number and types (civil, criminal, family) of cases where decisions are reversed or appealed so that the peasantry can make a decision based on something other than name recognition and sound bites?

Mr. Vogel wrote: “Raggio said SJR2 would reduce the need for judges and justices to solicit campaign contributions since they would not be running against an opponent.”

Would the Legislature prohibit fundraising? I doubt it — it would set a precedent that could spread. The first incumbent to get less than 60 percent of the vote would challenge the legality of the process. Clark County has demonstrated that “once an incumbent, always an incumbent” prevails.

If the Missouri Plan is so successful, there should be data to prove it. Nevada voters should not abrogate their right to choose who sits on the bench.

Richard nocilla

LAS VEGAS

Tax diversion

To the editor:

I believe Gov. Jim Gibbons is on the right track when he proposes to use some of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority’s room tax revenue to build and improve our highway infrastructure. What’s wrong with asking a quasi-government corporation to do more with less? We citizens are asked to do it all the time. It may be unheard of in government, but it’s a start.

Just like clockwork, the convention authority is calling in the usual suspects to defend its empire and try to frighten us to death over the consequences if the diversion of funds is approved.

With all due respect to the elected officials on the convention authority’s board of directors, you got us into this mess with your “grow at any cost” mind-set. Now help us get out of it by agreeing to the tax diversion and doing some extra hard work over a long period of time.

Welcome to the club.

Edward r. duffey

LAS VEGAS

Good and brave

To the editor:

In his Tuesday letter, William Wolfs laments that Harry Reid chose “political capital over the flower of my generation” by voting for legislation to fund the war in Iraq without attaching a timetable for troop withdrawals. Mr. Wolfs claims that his generation is “dying for a cause nobody believes in.” Mr. Wolfs’ generation is victimized by ignorance and naivete. Yes, young disillusioned ones, it is well-known that “Harry Reid is for Harry Reid.”

Unfortunately, while many youth are ignorant of our cultural heritage, of our forefathers’ faith in God and their commitment to liberty or death, the children of our enemies have no such ignorance of their purpose, nor lack of commitment to die for their cause.

We are facing implacable enemies with a generation taught to think of themselves as descendants of apes, with no God, no fundamental rules or moral values. Whether it’s sex or school or work, the main value is it has to be fun. Nothing hard or boring! We have adults teaching them that we caused the terrorists to hate and attack us.

The ignorance and lack of moral fortitude of the younger generation is frightening. They are so saturated with Hollywood filth, they’re oblivious to the real world.

What a tragedy that the good and the brave are giving their lives to defend the liberty of those who don’t appreciate it or care.

B.J. Butler

LAS VEGAS

Courting trouble

To the editor:

The 5-4 Ledbetter decision, which gutted the right of employees to sue for wage discrimination by seizing on a 180-day window to sue clause, is the first big decision by the court that President Bush destroyed with the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito (“Court limits ability to sue for pay bias,” Wednesday Review-Journal).

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg got it right. The argument about companies needing peace, or that it’s “unfair” to call them to pay for their illegal conduct after years of enjoying the economic benefits of such illegal discrimination, is hogwash. By paying a woman employee at least $6,000 less than any man in the same position, the company knowingly engaged in illegal activity for economic gain. Such conduct should never go without a severe punishment, like large punitive damages, and the victim should enjoy a complete recovery.

I hope Congress will quickly initiate an amendment to correct the horrible injustice done by our very seriously compromised Supreme Court. Protecting the large corporate lawbreaker at the expense of the innocent employee victim is nothing short of disgraceful.

Thomas Rondeau

LAS VEGAS