Judicial Cost Cuts OK
Re attorney Steven Lucas’ Column Right Commentary, “Lawmakers’ Revenge, Pure and Simple” (March 9):
Theoretically, the judiciary is a nonpolitical entity. In practice, it is very political. No judge is appointed without examination of his political beliefs and record.
Few Democrats are appointed by Republicans and vice versa. The political litmus test is more publicized on the federal level.
Has attorney Lucas forgotten the political reaction to decisions of the court under Justice (Rose Elizabeth) Bird? Is he not aware of the political attacks by Ira Reiner on the judge in the Korean grocer case?
The voters, in approving Proposition 140, expressed dissatisfaction with government, although only the Legislature was specifically named. One of the ideas was to reduce costs.
Why should not the judiciary and the executive share in the reduction? Would attorney Lucas contend that there is no fat in the judiciary’s budget?
There is an implication that throwing the rascals out will improve legislation coming out of Sacramento. That is an arguable point. With short-term limits and no retirement benefits, we may find a less-qualified group of rascals occupying those seats.
RAY BRACY, Tustin
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
