Too many judges base rulings on personal biases
Re: Vital questions for Elena Kagan,” editorial, May 11
We need unbiased jurists on the Supreme Court who rule based on the law, not on their personal views, prejudices and feelings.
As a pro se attorney representing my own small company, I frequently find judges’ rulings are based on their personal views or their mood that day, not the law. I frequently have to cite the code to them, and yet they sometimes still rule contrary to current law.
The joke among fellow attorneys is: “The law ain’t what the law is, it’s what the judge says it is the day you’re in court.”
Jeff Underwood
=”text-align:>
Supreme Court’s abortion ruling liberated women
Re: “We don’t need another Thurgood Marshall,” May 13
Gregory Kane’s attack on the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling was ridiculous. The ruling did not “ratchet down morality.” Rather, it liberated women from “mandatory motherhood” dictated by the “old boy” network’s theologically conservative and malignant patriarchalism. It expanded freedom of conscience for women and saved them from back-alley butchers.
If women were adequately represented in government, instead of making up a mere 17 percent of Congress, we would all be better off and the abortion rights quarrels would go away.
Edd Doerr
=”text-align:>
=”text-align:>=”text-align:>=”text-align:>
