Survey shows our judges should be appointed

To the editor:

The Review-Journal series "Judging the Judges" was most interesting (Sunday, Monday editions).

What the articles mostly showed was that judges should be appointed by the executive branch -- by the governor and/or a judicial evaluation committee. As with most jobs, hiring or promotion should be based on the best-qualified person for the job, not a popularity contest, which is what voting has become.

Being a retired peace officer and just retired from a Clark County prosecution agency, I can attest that there are many good judges and some very poor judges. The election process gives no assurance that an attorney is competent to be a judge, other than what his campaign signs boast at election time.

Judges in Nevada should be appointed based on performance and success as an attorney. Further, the judge should be subjected to a complete background and psychological evaluation, just as peace officer candidates are. Judges are handed much more authority and should be evaluated to ensure they can fairly carry out the duties of this highly responsible job that so much affects people's lives.

Todd Wheelan

North Las Vegas

Day made

To the editor:

Thanks for printing Dave Barry's year in review in the Sunday Viewpoints section in its entirety. Made my day.

Esmael E. Candelaria

Henderson

Abridgement of rights

To the editor:

In his Dec. 29 column, Alexander Cockburn was absolutely correct in identifying the great danger to our civil liberties in the National Defense Authorization Act, recently signed by President Obama. This act requires the military to imprison terrorism suspects (including U.S. citizens in this country and throughout the world) indefinitely without trial and without even being charged.

The act allows U.S. citizens to be imprisoned by the military not only for supposedly "belligerent" acts, but also for "supporting" the commission of such acts.

The Bush administration claimed it had this power. The Obama administration has gone one step further and signed a law formally giving itself this claimed power.

The organization Human Rights Watch has said, "President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law." Equally disturbing is the silence by the liberals and progressives who would be loudly declaring their outrage if a Republican president signed this bill.

When I taught constitutional law, I described how protected we are by the Bill of Rights. This new law makes a mockery of the Bill of Rights and the Fifth Amendment.

It's nice to finally have a president who understands the Constitution. It would be nicer to have a president who respects and enforces that Constitution.

Mel Lipman

Las Vegas

Red lights

To the editor:

I have been coming to this valley since the 1980s. I chose to retire here a few years ago.

I have noticed after living here a number of years, however, that you can die of a terminal illness waiting for red lights to turn green. Consequently, drivers have a terrible habit of running red lights. I know cars in other areas also run red lights. In this valley, however, I have counted as many as three cars going through the intersection after the light changes -- and that is unique to this area.

Stopping for red lights are another problem. If you approach intersections with caution and respect yellow lights, you run the risk of being hit by the driver behind you.

I wonder if shorter red light intervals might benefit this area. Traffic flow would improve, cars would not be so determined to avoid red lights and the overall safety at intersections would improve. I do believe our traffic departments should consider re-timing the red lights.

Ernest Woodzelle

Henderson

Minority tyranny

To the editor:

In your Sunday editorial, "Democrats and the Senate" you state that the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate is "looking downright rocky." The Senate itself is downright rocky.

The population of our three largest states (California, Texas and New York) is 25 percent of the U.S. population. The total population of our 30 smallest states (including Nevada) is also 25 percent of the U.S. population. Yet the people living in the big three get six senators while the people of the smallest 30 get 60 senators.

The fact that our Constitution has been amended only 27 times in 224 years is often used as evidence of how wise Gouverneur Morris and the other framers were. It's really evidence of how difficult the framers made it to change, or amend, the Constitution. In today's political environment, an amendment to redress the "tyranny of the minority" living in the smallest 30 states is unthinkable.

Vic Presutti

Dayton, Ohio

Feeding time

To the editor:

Saturday's Review-Journal contained an article about the County Commission's consideration of an ordinance that would prohibit feeding pigeons in an effort to control the growing pigeon population. But all the experts agree that this will have no effect. Pigeons are experts at foraging within our cities. They will find food.

The ordinance might make the commissioners feel as if they are actually doing something, but it will have no effect on the pigeon population. If the commissioners truly want to control pigeons, they need to feed them. Set up aviaries around town where pigeons can be fed and where they can nest. Then simply institute pigeon birth control.

And no, this does not involve tiny condoms. Just pick up their eggs and discard them. Soon the population will decline.

Albert G. Marquis

Las Vegas