|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Also this issue: Ellen Rosenholtz:
Strawberry Girl Rappin' with the Rev Goodbye to a Good Guy |
|
|
|
|
 |
|||||||||
July 10-16, 2003
mailbag
Michael T. Regan's fine photographic essay, "Germantown Avenue: The Story of America in 8.5 Miles" [July 3, 2003], calls attention to the striking series of contrasts and juxtaposed neighborhoods obvious to anyone who has ever driven even part of the way from one end of the street in Chestnut Hill through Mt. Airy and on through Germantown to North Philly and Northern Liberties. Daryl Gale's accompanying introduction provides some context for the visual tour, but those who are interested in exploring the topic more fully should read Penn sociologist Elijah Anderson's excellent ethnographic study, Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. Anderson began his book with an introduction titled "Down Germantown Avenue" to illustrate the same exact thing, but his analysis of the underlying social issues goes much deeper.
R. Scott Hanson
Visiting assistant professor of history
Philadelphia University
Kudos to Mary Patel for addressing the very important issue of judicial selection [Political Notebook, June 26, 2003]. I'd like to highlight a side of the merit selection proposal that she may not have considered. After four years on the bench, newly appointed judges would run for retention in an uncontested nonpartisan election where voters vote "yes" or "no" on whether the judge deserves to stay in office for a full term. Retention elections do not require the kind of campaigning and fundraising that judicial candidates face today in contested partisan elections. The retention election is simply a way for citizens to have a say in whether a judge is doing a good job. It also serves as a check on the governor's appointment power and the senate's confirmation power. Merit selection is not simply a repackaged version of the status quo.
One of the major reasons that Gov. Rendell and Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts support merit selection is that it would remove the money and campaigning from the judicial selection process. Sure, there will still be some politics involved in the choices, but the need to raise money from lawyers and potential litigants would be removed. Any qualified individual would have a shot at becoming a judge -- not just the wealthiest or those with access to special interest dollars.
Merit selection focuses on judges being selected based upon their career accomplishments and qualifications, not because they have the millions of dollars required to run a successful political campaign. Merit selection proposals cover only the appellate courts, where judges are selected on a statewide basis; local trial judges would continue to be elected.
Danielle Weiss
Legal intern
Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts
Apologies to White House spokesperson Scott Stanzel, who took time out from his busy schedule to express concern about "Constitutional Irony," Daniel Brook's July 3, 2003 story. Stanzel, in between his duty explaining the wonders of the war in Iraq and other Bush accomplishments, was concerned that "an inattentive reader might think that" a line in the story -- "Big whoop, they invented flight, we invented America" -- might be attributed to him.
Attentive readers will realize that the line was a Brookism.
-- Respond to this article in our Forums -- click to jump there
