Letters to editor

Another step needed in Supreme Court process

By From page A11 | November 09, 2012

I recently read an article about the Supreme Court gearing up to render a decision concerning the police use of dogs to aid them in the search for suspects, evidence, drugs and so on. Their concern was privacy issues.

The president nominates Supreme Court judges and the Senate committee conducts a hearing. The committee makes a report to the Senate, who passes it on to the President for confirmation. I feel that one more step should be inserted in the process, between the Senate’s report, and the president confirming the nominee.

This step should be the absolute requirement that the candidate (male or female) be assigned to ride around for 30 continuous days (eight-hour shifts, 15 being between midnight and 8 a.m.) including holiday and weekends, with a police patrol car on duty. This is to take place in a major city with a high crime rate. Oakland comes to mind.

The candidate will be armed with a notebook and ballpoint pen. Helmet and flak jacket is optional. The candidate is to keep a smile on his or her face and is to keep his or her big mouth shut. For recreation, the candidate can tell the ACLU to take a hike and read the Ten Commandments. Upon conclusion of the 30th day, the desk sergeant will certify that the conditions were met and the candidate can then deliver it to the president for confirmation.

I feel sure that the candidate will have witnessed gang shootings, drunken driving, rapes, burglaries and the therapeutic effects of crystal meth.

I also think it would be nice if the Rev. Fred Phelps of the Westborough Methodist Church and his band could attend the confirmation.

Now, when the new justice is ensconced in his or her air-conditioned chambers, meditating on the case of the State of Illinois vs. Billy Joe Dingbat, 1902, (don’t look for it), he can recall some of his or her notes from Oakland, and render a less “out of touch” opinion.

Jim Jerrell


Letter to the Editor


Discussion | 1 comment

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Please read our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before commenting.

  • Danny BuntinNovember 09, 2012 - 8:09 am

    Judges are not in the business of "right or wrong" in criminal cases. They are in the business of "legal or illegal". Never confuse the two, or substitute one for the other.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Recent Articles

  • Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Special Publications »

    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
    Copyright (c) 2016 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.