The Battle of the Bench Continues

Re “Bush to Revive Failed Judicial Nominations,” Dec. 24: The U.S. Senate should tread lightly around using the “nuclear option” for blocking debate on judicial nominations or some members may face a voter backlash in 2006.

Whatever this past election was, it was not a referendum to overturn long-standing constitutional protections such as the freedom of speech, freedom from frivolous government detention, and protection of a natural right to privacy. These fundamental freedoms cannot be allowed to be squandered as a payback to special interest groups for delivering a narrow political victory.

For those who would say a radical right turn of the judiciary is the message the voters sent in November, I encourage citizens to look at the depth of the president’s “mandate.” Forty-nine percent of voters did not reelect him. His current approval rating is less than 50%. If this is “political capital,” I would call it little more than spare change.

James Hogan

Sparks, Nev.

*

Is it news or opinion masquerading as news when in your lead front-page news story on Christmas Eve you write, “... the president appears ready to use his second term to try to move the federal courts to the right on such issues as religion, abortion, gay rights, the environment and consumer protection.” In truth, isn’t he trying to move the federal courts to where they were before they were pushed over to the extreme left by a liberal judiciary in the 1960s and 1970s? Or, are we blue-in-red staters missing something here?

Stanislaus Pulle

Thousand Oaks

*

It looks like President Bush is eager to open his war chest in order to spend some of his highly touted political capital in a move that is clearly designed to flaunt his postelection power. However, just as the dollar has fallen against all other major currencies around the world, Bush may find out that his White House currency has also lost value in the marketplace of politics.

Neal Kelsey

Hesperia

*

It would be wise for both Bush and Democrats in Congress who would obstruct the president’s judicial nominees to remember the insight of Franklin D. Roosevelt: “We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it.”

Mike Nally

Garden Grove