Judge's Second Amendment stance a problem


To the editor:

U.S. Sen. Dean Heller's opposition to the appointment of District Judge Elissa Cadish to the federal bench is well-justified (Review-Journal, Friday). "Judicial emergency" notwithstanding, the failure of Judge Cadish to grasp a fundamental understanding of the rights bestowed under the Second Amendment casts doubts on her ability to make judgments based upon the Constitution's language.

What the jurist apparently does not understand is that the Constitution does not bestow rights upon the people of this great nation. These rights are ours by birth.

The Constitution and the first 10 amendments simply tell government what it cannot limit or take away. If Judge Cadish cannot subscribe to this reality, she should not wear the robes of any court.

Her justification for the stance she took on the questionnaire at issue was that she was responding to the "state of federal law." The state of federal law should not be the guiding light of a federal judge. Rather, it should be the rights of citizens under those laws.

John Stites

Henderson

Auto mandate

To the editor:

In response to James Rideout's Monday letter:

There is a difference between the mandatory auto liability insurance one must have in order to drive and the mandatory health insurance required by ObamaCare: Owning and driving a car is an individual choice. There is no penalty or fine for choosing not to drive or not to purchase a car. It's that simple.

Susan Levy

Las Vegas

Senate deadbeat

To the editor:

In regard to the Friday Review-Journal story about state Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford:

How ironic that someone who is constantly attempting to raise the tax obligation on Nevadans does not seem to feel bound to pay his own obligations.

Mike Murphy

Pahrump

Truck traffic

To the editors:

For the past couple of days, local radio stations have been airing spots about the Nevada Highway Patrol's "Badge-on-Board" program, which is intended to make motorists drive in a safer manner when near heavy trucks.

But what about the reverse? Where is the program to make the heavy trucks drive in a safer manner? They speed, make unsafe lane changes and follow closely with seeming impunity. Since I moved to Nevada seven years ago, I have yet to see a truck stopped by a Highway Patrol officer, except for the occasional safety checks at the junction of U.S. Highway 95 and U.S. Highway 93.

We banned cellphone use by drivers (a good thing), but the truckers go on with their CB radios and the tour bus drivers with hand-held microphones.

Perhaps the trucking lobby up Carson City way is just too strong for Nevada to have effective truck regulation.

Jack Corrick

Boulder City

Pay twice

To the editor:

I'd like to offer an upgrade to the recent letter from S.G. Hayes Sr. advocating that public employees who commit acts that lead to monetary settlements assume liability rather than the taxpayers.

We've all heard the public employee unions attempt to justify their members' inflated wages and benefits by claiming the taxpayers are getting professionals who, in fact, save us money in the "long run." Well, let them put their money where their mouth is.

How about we assign the liabilities generated by union members to the unions? If you read the recent article on union boss compensation, it is obvious they have boatloads upon boatloads of cash. After all, the money in their treasury is taxpayer money to start with, and why should we have to pay twice for incompetence?

Mark Morris

Las Vegas

 

Rules for posting comments

Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Stephens Media LLC or this newspaper. This is a public forum. Read our guidelines for posting. If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon next to the comment.