CONTACTING US
NEWSROOM:
(541)346-5511
E-MAIL:
ADDRESS:
Oregon Daily Emerald
PO. BOX 3159
ode@oregon. uoregon edu Eugene, Oregon 97403
ONLINE EDITION: www.uoregon.edu/~ode
Perspectives
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITOR
Mike Schmierbach
NIGHT EDITOR
Carl Yeh
Tieman would upset judicial balance
AH EMERALD EDITORIAL
Voters should reject any efforts to make the judicial
branch more political, including Pieman’s candidacy
In Washington, D.C., a movement is under
way to pass legislation that would restrict
the ability of federal courts to review ballot
initiatives passed by voters in a state. This
effort, backed heavily by California representa
tives who have seen their state pass several mea
sures that are still tied up in courts, would create
special panels to review the constitutionality of
initiatives.
Currently, such initiatives, like all other laws,
follow the same process through the courts as
anything else. They start in a circuit court,
where a single judge considers the matter.
While we support the initiative process and
appreciate congressional concerns about overly
political judges, we don’t support this reform ef
fort. The key to ending judicial bias is not to
make it easier for unconstitutional laws to slip
through the system; reform must occur at the
level of the bench.
In the upcoming primary election, Oregon vot
ers have an opportunity to ensure such reform
moves in the right direction. Former state repre
sentative Bob Tiernan is running for the state
Supreme Court, and he represents everything
that could be wrong with a judge.
Prior to making a run for the court, Tiernan
was promoting an initiative that would have al
lowed candidates to make their political views
more explicit. Currently, judges are expected to
remain neutral on policy matters, allowing vot
ers to base their decisions on competence and le
gal experience rather than political orientation.
This certainly doesn’t prevent strongly politi
cal judges from seeking a seat on the bench. In
fact, of the five candidates seeking the Supreme
Court seat, four are registered Republicans —
suggesting Tiernan is wrong when he claims that
liberals dominate the state’s highest court.
Nevertheless, Tiernan’s proposal — which he
later dropped in favor of a legislative solution
and his current campaign — would have made
politics the key factor in judicial races. This
would have been unfortunate.
The point of the judicial branch is to fairly and
objectively consider the merits of legal argu
ments. It doesn’t take a progressive and activist
court to protect the interests of the public — it
takes a fair court and a progressive legislature.
Neither a conservative nor a liberal judiciary
is particularly desirable. Instead, the state
should work toward ensuring that a more objec
tive set of judges is granted authority.
For voters, the first step is clearly to reject
Tiernan and the far-right, politicized bench he
represents. As columnist Steve Duin of The Ore
gonian put it, “Tiernan is a meathead with a
CHRIS HUTCHINSON/Emerald
mean streak and a ham-fisted political agenda.”
The members of the Oregon State Bar appear
to concur with the meathead judgment, at least.
In a poll, Tiernan came in fourth of the five can
didates for the Supreme Court position; his 138
votes were well behind the lawyers’ top pick,
William Riggs, who received 1,718 nods of ap
proval, according to The Register-Guard.
Rejecting Tiernan in this election isn’t
enough, of course. Lake Oswego voters drove
him and his hate-filled politics out of office al
ready; Oregon voters should continue the trend
by rejecting whatever deviant and destructive
policy he comes up with next, especially if it
threatens the objectivity of the judicial branch.
Unfortunately, there is a great risk that Tier
nan will win this election or at least make it into
a runoff. The reason: name recognition.
This is a problem that continues to cloud the
judicial selection process. Although judges are
forbidden from soliciting funds or making politi
cal statements, they can still take contributions
and advertise their name and experience.
Accordingly, as The Nation documented in a
recent issue, many judicial campaigns — like
those for other political offices — go to the
biggest spender. Because private law firms that
do business primarily with corporations are
among the biggest contributors to judicial races,
judges who back corporate interests often find
themselves in office.
Therefore, the real danger to a balanced judi
ciary is not the gubernatorial appointments Tier
nan so laments, but the continued influence of
money in the elections process.
Judges should have less power to speak about
politics or anything else during elections, not
more. The key to a fair election and a balanced
bench are restrictions that allow voters to choose
their candidate based on experience rather than
partisanship or name recognition.
This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald
editorial board. Responses may be sent to ode®
Oregon. u Oregon. edu.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Walker best choice
In response to Michael Burnham’s
coverage of the House District 41 race,
I find it more interesting to note what
the article didn’t say rather than what
it did say. Burnham included Vicki
Walker as more of an afterthought in
his coverage, giving Fox several
columns of space to spout his rhetoric
on his Children’s Charter. What Fox
doesn’t tell you in so many words is
that he doesn’t support public educa
tion. He supports a system of private
education, preferably religious in na
ture, funded by public tax dollars that
would, in essence, create a two-tiered
system of education. I, for one, do not
find the prospect of an education sys
tem based on vouchers very attractive.
He also tells you that per-student state
spending is $7,200 when in actuality
it is only $4,491.1 believe Fox is un
happy with the current public system
in part because they won’t allow the
teaching of creationism as a scientific
theory. What Fox fails to understand
is that the Constitution is very clear
about the doctrine of separation of
church and state.
Vicki Walker, a 1978 University
graduate, is a strong supporter of
public education. She and her chil
dren attended Eugene schools. Her
son is a sophomore at the Universi
ty and her daughter attends Lane
Community College. Walker will
work hard to secure more funding
for schools and keep tuition rates
down. In addition, Walker is pro
choice; her opponent is not. Walker
supports civil rights for all Oregoni
ans; her opponent does not. Walker
is a respected community leader
with broad-based appeal. She is the
only real choice for students and de
serves your vote on May 19.
Carolyn Lee
Political Science
Protect public health
I was disappointed to discover a
colorful advertisement prominent
ly displayed on the back page of a
recent issue of the Emerald, in
forming readers about smokeless
tobacco. The Emerald’s editorial
staff should be ashamed to help
sell products that endanger the
health of their readers and fellow
students.
The increasing market shares of
smokeless tobacco point to the ad
dictive potential of its nicotine
content. At least there was the
obligatory legal "Warning: This
product is not a safe alternative to
cigarettes.” I am not aware of this
product being a safe alternative.
The bottom of the ad read: “Big
ger is always better!” As a physi
cian, my professional experience
has been that this refers to the “big
ger, better” chance of the con
sumer developing cancer. “U.S.
Tobacco reminds you smokeless
tobacco [is] not for sale to minors.”
Isn’t that a patriotic name for a
company selling such a product to
young people?
Among Emerald readers there
are impressionable minors. More
than once I have had to explain to
relatively young adults that they
have a suspicious looking lesion in
their mouth that needs the services
of a surgeon for biopsy and re
moval with potentially disfiguring
surgery.
Please stop accepting advertising
revenue for products that will
prove damaging to your fellow stu
dents and readers. Any revenue
from this account cannot justify the
damage to the public health.
Gaiy Young
Medical Director,
Sacred Heart Emergency Department
Thumbs
V/
TO CLINTON’S
STANCE ON
TRADE REGULA
TIONS:
In a speech to
evangelical Chris
tians at the White
House, the presi
dent argued
against congres
sional restrictions
on trade prac
tices. According
to The New York
Times, Clinton
declared that re
strictions that
forbid trade with
nations that vio
lated certain stan
dards, such as
human rights,
would force the
administration to
"fudge,” or over
look, violations.
Such a declara
tion demon
strates evetything
that is wrong with
the current glob
alist approach to
trade. Some con
gressional de
crees, such as the
one banning
trade with Cuba,
are wrong head
ed. Nevertheless,
open trade can
and should be
tied to appropri
ate treatment of
workers, the en
vironment and
political dissi
dents—so long
as that tie is uni
versally imposed.
By acknowledg
ing the adminis
tration has and
will continue to
ignore destruc
tive practices by
other nations in
the interest of the
profits of multi
national corpora
tions, Clinton has
further demon
strated why a
blind adherence
to free trade at
the cost of com
mon sense will
hurt average citi
zens throughout
the world.
TO EDITING
FIGHTS OUT OF
THE “JERRY
SPRINGER
SHOW”:
Now that
Springer has ap
parently bowed to
anti-violence
groups, why
would anyone
watch?