Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

We must speak out to keep our judges accountable

Re: Reckless rhetoric.

Your Jan. 15 editorial was right about one thing: It's important to debate the proper role of the judiciary in our system of government.

Judicial independence is a bedrock principle. But, like all other public servants, judges must be accountable. When they stray from interpreting the Constitution and instead impose their own policy preferences, we have a duty to speak out. Otherwise, we'd be surrendering our right to self-government.

I criticized the Florida Supreme Court's voucher decision because it's wrong and because it has awful real-world consequences. Our Constitution simply does not prohibit the voucher law that the court struck down. For no legitimate reason, the court took away an important weapon in the fight to improve failing schools. And it deprived poor students of a potentially life-changing opportunity.

More broadly, I support policies that promote the separation of powers. That's why I've recommended giving the Legislature final say over rules of criminal procedure. These rules play a key role in determining whether justice will be administered swiftly and fairly, especially in death penalty cases. The change I've proposed would give our Legislature the same authority over state rules that Congress has over federal rules. Florida's current system, which lets the Supreme Court write the rules of criminal procedure, is fundamentally inconsistent with the separation of powers. Judges are meant to be impartial umpires; they shouldn't be writing the rules of the game.

A final word on the issue of responsible rhetoric. The term "judicial activism" should be reserved for egregious cases - like the voucher decision - where a court usurps the Legislature's policymaking role. Similarly, not every criticism of a court decision is an assault on judicial independence. To suggest otherwise risks stifling debate on issues that matter to all of us.

A strange political strategy

Re: Reckless rhetoric, Jan. 15.

If I understood the recommendation of your editorial condemning Tom Gallagher, you have suggested his best strategy to win the GOP primary is to favor abortions, denounce school vouchers, and embrace a strong judiciary rather than legislative initiatives.

This would constitute a most unique approach to running for statewide office in Florida, winning Republican votes by positioning yourself as more liberal than the Democratic candidates.

Unless the electorate in Florida has dramatically changed historical voting patterns, I don't see how that approach constitutes anything less than a retirement from public service.

Perhaps that was your subtle intent, but I doubt that Tom Gallagher is going to take that tainted bait from his primary opponent's hometown newspaper.

Is this appropriate?

Re: Gallagher's public side evolves through wife's faith, Jan. 14.

Should the Times' bureau chief in Tallahassee be writing an overly flattering (my opinion) column about a gubernatorial candidate so far in advance of the primary election?

I think not. I also think Steve Bousquet's column should have appeared on the editorial page.

Twisting Christianity for politics

Though I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of Tom Gallagher's religious "awakening," I have to question why so-called born-again Christians feel that their conversion goes hand in hand with right wing conservative orthodoxy. As a lifelong practicing Catholic who is familiar with the words of Jesus in the New Testament, I fail to find the passages that justify tax cuts favoring the wealthy over the poor, condone mindless bigotry against those who are different, that justify the proliferation of guns or the waging of needless wars.

Would Jesus have instructed people to phone in death threats to public servants like Judge George Greer who are only upholding the law? Would he have instructed his people to follow the rantings of commentators like Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh, all of whom have personal lives that do not fit the Christian standard.

If Tom Gallagher wants to appeal to the extreme right wing to further his career, that's his business. But I'm tired of people perverting the message of Christianity to further a political cause. As Jesus says, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

Values in conflict

Re: Gallagher tells pastors about his spiritual shift, Jan. 20.

Where's the logic in Tom Gallagher's recent statements to a group of pastors? He says he considers life to be from conception to natural death, yet he supports capital punishment. What's so "natural" about lethal injection, electrocution or any other means our various states use to impose the death penalty?

Looking for the sanctity of life

Re: Calif. executes aged inmate, Jan. 18.

This story gives a whole new slant to the concept of "sanctity of life." Clarence Ray Allen, the ailing 76-year-old man, had asked that if he went into cardiac arrest before execution, he should not be resuscitated. No, the prison officials said, they valued life too much to allow him to die. They had to let him live so that they could execute him!

This would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic. It is just another variation on the theme of some who claim to be prolife. They value life so much that they will kill to prove it. When are they going to start believing in the sanctity of all life?

Before this month is over, Gov. Jeb Bush wants to execute two more persons. They may well be totally guilty of the crimes they have been convicted of, but isn't it interesting that only a few murderers - typically poor, disadvantaged and badly defended - are executed. Apparently he thinks that this proves how tough on crime he is. Or does it show how dispensable some poor lives are? Where is the sanctity of life here?

A woman's responsibility

Re: A dependent life form, letter, Jan. 17.

It seems to me that if women don't want to "host" a dependent life form, it is the women's duty, not the doctor's responsibility, to do something about it. After all, she is the one who cooperated in the creation of the dependent life form. If a woman wants to have unprotected sex with a man she does not care to have a child with, why bring the doctor into it?

[Last modified January 23, 2006, 00:59:12]