The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 5 of 14)

/p>

Mr. Reiland has presented a fine article. He defines a truly egregious problem within the judicial branch of the government of Pennsylvania. I initially found myself quite sympathetic to his argument and his obvious angst. The feeling passed rather quickly, however. I am sorry, but the citizens of the great state of Pennsylvania brought it on themselves. They are the ones that voted into office, repeatedly, the politicians that enable the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices, the politicians that are at least as arrogant and corrupt as the judges. These voters re-elect these same corrupt politicians over and over again. The good citizens gripe and complain vociferously, and then in the sanctity of the voting booth return the same corrupt arrogant lawyers to their positions of power in the Legislature, the Governor's office, and the Judiciary. The majority of the voters of the state are obviously more concerned with maintaining the benefits that the state showers upon them, and increasing said benefits to the max, then with electing a responsible, honest government and judiciary.

Before anyone points it out, I realize that judges are not normally elected by the voters, they usually come by their office by some form of nomination by the Governor and concurrence by one of the Legislative branches. In many states, judges must then stand for a retention or not vote by the citizenry after some number of years. I assume that Pennsylvania follows some form of this general procedure. If not, I assume that the Legislature and Governor have a great deal of power over the yearly budget of the Judicial branch, and thus, can force changes to be made in the attitudes of the Justices, if such be necessary or desirable. Therefore, I say that it still comes down to the voters within the jurisdiction.

p>Whether it be at the state level, or the national level, Americans pretty generally get the government that the majority of them want and deserve. br> -- Ken Shreve /p> p> FUNNY, IF NOT SO TRAGIC br> Re: Shawn Macomber's Scenes From a Crack-Up : /p>

Shawn Macomber's "Apocalypse Now"-style journey up the Kos-kong River (and corresponding descent into madness) was excellent. My favorite part was his description of the YearlyKos "online messaging" workshop. I only wish Macomber could have figured out a way to hack into the workshop's computers in order to sabotage that sordid little affair with some stealthily planted parrying of the practice email subject lines the attendees crafted.

Here's how I'd have played it were I such a hacker. Subject line: "Do you support banning books?" Me: "Only the crappy ones, which is basically everything that pours forth from the pens of progressives."

topics:
Economics, Sports, Environment, Books, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Iraq, Iran, Energy, Oil