The Prop. 8 ruling and the Constitution; California’s water wars; health insurance industry profits

It’s a civics lesson

Re “Judging the judiciary,” Opinion, Aug. 13

It’s about time that people like American Family Assn. President Tim Wildmon read the U.S. Constitution accurately.

There are three branches of government, not two. The judiciary has as important a role to play as the executive and legislative branches. When the majority oversteps its bounds, the judiciary has to make decisions when asked whether a law is constitutional or not. It fulfills its role remarkably well when compared with the other two branches.

Beyond U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s decision on Proposition 8, there are appeals to higher courts if merited. Let the law take its course and trust that the Constitution will prevail.

Anthony J. Palmer

Hudson, Mass.

Wildmon should be careful what he wishes for.

If, as he maintains, judges must recuse themselves from deciding constitutional issues because they belong to a group that arguably has a bias toward a certain outcome, and if the Proposition 8 case will, as it seems, make it to the Supreme Court for review, it could be argued that the six Catholics on the court should recuse themselves from ruling on it because of their church’s very public opposition to same-sex marriage.

That would leave the three justices of the Jewish faith — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan — to decide the issue. I think most opponents of Proposition 8 would like those odds.

W. Clinton Sterling

Spokane, Wash.

The writer is an assistant professor and senior reference librarian at Gonzaga University School of Law.

Re “Prop. 8 backers angry at reversal of voter mandate,” Aug. 1

Why should we even vote if our votes can just be tossed out? One activist judge said Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Wrong!

What’s really unconstitutional is one activist judge ignoring the will of the people and taking away our right to vote.

Jeff Jackson

Cypress

How is it possible that a gay-rights case was “randomly” assigned to a judge reported to be gay? As Christians like to say: God works in mysterious ways!

Gary Davis

Los Angeles

This is a sad reflection of the state of civics education in this country. These people must have never heard of the Federalist Papers or, for that matter, the term “constitutional democracy.”

Why are we even entertaining their arguments? We don’t live in a country that is governed by majority rule. End of story.

Even if a group could garner a 51% majority for a law that bans guns or that takes away trial by jury, guess what — it’s not going to become a law.

If these people want to live in a country where the laws are dictated solely on their moral and religious beliefs, I suggest they move to Iran.

John Durham III

Los Angeles

Why The Times continues to run articles filled with quotes from people who clearly napped through their high school civics classes is beyond my comprehension. Yet, you persist.

Would it have been too much trouble to include a sentence explaining that the judiciary’s primary purpose is to determine the constitutionality of laws and apply it to specific cases?

Marty Trujillo

Villa Park

Regardless of the merits of the ultimate issue, it is a little frightening that no one may have standing on appeal to represent the millions of Californians who voted for Proposition 8, thereby rendering impossible a review of the first opinion in the United States to rule on the constitutionality (on a federal level) of defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Both sides recognize the potential ramifications of the decision on individuals and society. To leave the final word with the District Court judge is irresponsible.

Barry Nichols

Los Angeles

Watching over our water

Re “Trim pork from water bond,” Column, Aug. 12

It’s disappointing to see George Skelton, whose sage political acumen is generally on point, make such misguided comments about the Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Act.

California’s water wars are one of the most contentious public policy issues, which is why it took nearly half a century for lawmakers to reach agreement on a comprehensive plan that improves our water supply and reliability.

As Skelton himself has pointed out in past columns, if future governors and Legislatures have a problem with a particular project that was not for water storage, they’d have the power to nix that funding without destroying the entire package.

Scrapping the bond and starting over would be a rookie move, but if someone has a better plan that has a chance of earning the support of this Legislature and the voters, I’ll be the first to lend my support.

Sen. Dave Cogdill

(R-Modesto)

The writer is the author of the Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Act.

I was surprised to learn of Skelton’s column dismissing Lake Tahoe’s proposed waterborne transit project.

It will provide a safe, accessible, low-emissions transportation network linking Tahoe’s communities; reduce traffic congestion; improve air quality and the lake’s famed water clarity; provide much-needed jobs in an area hard hit by the recession, and stimulate a growing ecotourism-based economy.

In short, this and other Tahoe projects would provide a range of public benefits that few others can match, and would help restore and protect an international treasure.

That’s why Nevada has already passed a $100-million bond for Tahoe projects in the middle of its worst fiscal crisis in history, why Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are co-sponsoring a $415-million federal authorization bill, why cash-strapped local businesses and homeowners are providing $250 million, and why Californians should do their part by ensuring that funding for Tahoe remains in the water bond.

Patrick Wright

South Lake Tahoe Calif.

The writer is executive director of the California Tahoe Conservancy.

Station isn’t that remote

Re “Failing Mitrice Richardson,” Editorial, Aug. 13

The death of Mitrice Richardson was clearly a terrible conclusion for her family.

I read your editorial. You stated that the Sheriff’s Department released her “on the doorstep of a station deep in Malibu Canyon.”

You make it sound as if the Lost Hills Station is located in some desolate spot in a rugged canyon.

The last time I drove by the station, I noted it is still situated about 200 yards from the 101 Freeway in a populated area.

Let the Sheriff’s Department investigate the case and determine what, if anything, could be done better. Don’t make it look worse than it was.

Ronald Bergmann

Winnetka

Nice work if you can get it

Re “Big year for execs at five insurers,” Aug. 11

Healthcare reform has slipped under the public radar, as can be seen by the return of business-as-usual by the health insurance industry. Companies are continuing to rob policyholders blind while their public relations spin doctors throw up their deflector shields, knowing that the public has no effective weapons to change the status quo.

If a health insurance executive does a poor job, they either get another raise or, if they are dismissed, a huge severance package and then have no trouble going through the executive job revolving door with another company.

If any of us peasants get a bad performance review, we are out on the street — and with a black mark on our record regarding future job prospects.

As The Times states, it is indeed another big year for big business execs.

Mark O’Connell

Irvine