Not much of a track record, so far

To the editor:

And, they called George W. Bush clueless? If George W. Bush had done the following in his first 120 days, he would have been crucified by the left-wing media.

1. Made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics;

2. Given Tony Blair a set of inexpensive and useless DVDs after Tony Blair had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift;

3. Given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches;

4. Bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia;

5. Visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language";

6. Filled his Cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes;

7. Appointed to a top policy position at the Defense Department, a columnist from the Los Angeles Times who believes U.S. policies were to blame for the 9/11 attacks by al-Qaida;

8. Ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so;

9. Proposed to double the national debt in one year (which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate);

10. Proposed to double the debt again within 10 years;

11. Put out a report to law enforcement agencies throughout the country warning them to be wary of returning veterans, because they might be more inclined to get involved in "right-wing extremist" activities;

12. Conducted an America apology tour around the world;

13. Proposed to eliminate America's nuclear arsenal, while Iran and North Korea build theirs unfettered;

So, tell me, what is it about Mr. Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Warren Willis Sr.

LAS VEGAS

Not living

To the editor:

President Obama's pick for Supreme Court Justice was chosen in part, according to him, because of her "empathy." She has been heard stating that "the appeals court is where policy is made." Others chime in because of her "Latina" background. Still others praise her persuasion that the Constitution is a "living document."

The Supreme Court has one purpose under the Constitution. That purpose is to make sure that things that are done are constitutional. There is no empathy. There is no bias due to one's race or ethnic experience. There is no "living" constitution.

We are a nation of laws. People should understand that the only way you have liberty is by having laws that are understood, within the Constitution, and not changed based on whim. Empathy has its place in judges conducting non-jury trials. It has its place when you as a citizen sit on a jury and decide that the law is unjust. You can find any way you want.

That's why the writers of the Constitution gave you that power: to provide empathy and justice where the law in a particular case might not result in a just outcome. But in the Supreme Court? No.

If Supreme Court justices rule on cases based on empathy, then your liberty just went out the door. If they have no regard for the Constitution as it was written, then what guarantee do you have as a citizen that subsequent courts will "feel" the same?

While it is popular to talk about a "living" Constitution, the truth is that a "living" Constitution is no Constitution at all. If I decide that my car payment should be 20 percent less this month due to a tough financial situation, then empathy should allow that to happen. It doesn't. It's a contract. We have a contract as citizens in this country with our government. If we allow people to say that the Constitution is a "living document" then you have no contract, you are on the way to tyranny.

Make no mistake: You want your legislators making laws and not the Supreme Court. You have no recourse to the court. If we put people on the bench who think they can determine cases based on empathy and their life experiences, then we are all lost. After all, it's no longer the Constitution. It's some person you never knew who had some experiences that colored her "feelings" about things that will effect every one of us in ways that we can only imagine.

I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable with that arrangement.

Charlie Whittenton

LAS VEGAS

Reid fundraiser

To the editor:

There certainly were a lot of empty seats shown in your photo of the Obama/Reid fundraiser (Wednesday). The article stated it was a sold-out show, but it certainly didn't look like it.

Too bad Harry Reid couldn't have spoken up on behalf of Las Vegas and challenged President Obama's remarks of a few months ago that hurt business here. How ludicrous for Mr. Obama to spend our tax money to fly himself down here on Air Force One when he had chastised businesses for holding meetings here.

Karen Gunderson

HENDERSON