PUBLIC FORUM : JUDGE'S PROP. 209 RULING IS `INDEFENSIBLE'.

The authors of our Constitution accurately perceived a need for independence on the part of the federal judiciary, and in pursuit of that goal accorded federal judges lifetime tenure. This is a remarkable power. But, because it is absolute, lifetime tenure promotes corruption if only in the form of judicial arrogance.

Chief District Judge Thelton E. Henderson has issued a temporary restraining order barring implementation of Proposition 209, which would preclude discrimination by the state on the basis of race and gender in state employment, contracting and education. Restraining orders are an extreme form of judicial relief particularly when issued in advance of trial, and should be afforded only when the issue is without significant doubt.

Judge Henderson concluded that there is a substantial probability that Proposition 209's anti-discrimination language is unconstitutional. Since Proposition 209 mimics the language of the Fifth and 14th Amendments and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Judge Henderson's credibility is devastated. His racial bias and dishonesty overwhelm his credibility and the integrity of his judicial office.

Judge Henderson's decision is legally, semantically, morally and ethically indefensible. He is the product of a Carter administration effort to promote ``affirmative action'' by appointing minority judges to the federal bench because ``it's right.'' The inevitability of his incompetence for this position has now come home to roost. He is a legal and judicial embarrassment!

Liberal ACLU advocates ``forum shopped'' to get Judge Henderson because they knew he was capable of the perfidy needed to stop implementation of Proposition 209's anti-discrimination mandates. Any effective review of his decision is years away since his decisions are reviewed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is itself a well-kept judicial embarrassment that escapes public review. The Ninth Circuit is the largest, most-reversed, most-liberal circuit in the United States. Judge Henderson knows this and appreciates the value of judicial delay.

We must stop the moral compromise that Judge Henderson demonstrates. His Machiavellian ``ends justifies the means'' philosophy is corrupt and must be rejected. Perhaps a constitutional amendment calling for six-year re-elections of federal judges is in order.

- P. Dennis Keenan

Glendale

Our land has been erroneously referred to as a ``democracy.'' This ridiculous action makes it clear that this is not only not a democracy, it is not a republic, either, even though that is guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of our supposedly supreme Constitution.

The properly descriptive word for this mess is kakistocracy, defined as government by the worst among us. And that seems to characterize most legislators, administrators, and the judiciary wherever they may be found.

But I suppose there are none so blind as those who will not see. Next time you have the chance to vote, don't forget that the most important and long lasting action of government is the appointment of judges.

- Jack Schlicht

North Hills

What we have here is a clear case of a federal judge carrying out his personal agenda, and that is an abuse of power.

The people of California went to the polls and overwhelmingly voted to not allow any form of discrimination - they voted ``yes'' for Proposition 209.

It would seem to me that a judge who is appointed for life and can only be removed by impeachment may not be good for a country that is ``of the people'' and ``for the people.''

It may be time to look at causing federal judges to be judged by the people they judge, and by that I mean they have to be elected every four years.

What a novel idea to have a judge accountable for his decisions. We wonder why people have lost faith in the system and why they do not vote. It is very clear that going to the polls is a waste of time when one person like Judge Henderson can overturn the votes of over 5 million people to satisfy his own view of what this republic should be.

- Donald Manning 

La Canada Flintridge

Airport crash

Re ``Fatal crash could be sign of things to come,'' Public Forum, Nov. 24:

There are several points that should be clarified. First, even though the Van Nuys control tower is closed at night, the decision to attempt a landing in low-visibility conditions rests solely with the pilot-in-command. The accident that occurred Nov. 14 could have happened even if the tower were operational.

Also, contrary to Theodore J. Aquaro's belief, there is air traffic control for Van Nuys at night.

I see no validity to Aquaro's inference that a poorly maintained fixed-base operator, or aviation business, causes accidents like these. It may be weeks or months before the FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board rule on this accident, but it sounds to me like the pilot had an affliction of get-there-itis.

His original destination was Burbank, but the visibility was too low. Next on the list was Van Nuys. Unfortunately, it seems the pilot did not want to land too far from the original destination. At Lancaster's Fox Field, the weather was clear.

The initial reports were that there was no mechanical problem and there was enough fuel to divert to Lancaster.

- Jeff Klosterman

Sherman Oaks

Failing parents

It is really too bad that the achievers and nonachievers in the Evanston, Ill., school district discussed in Mike Royko's column (``Kids failing? Forget all the usual suspects'', Opinions, Nov. 24) seem to be divided along racial lines. That makes it far too easy for the frothing fanatics among us to scream ``racism'' when the problem discussed has nothing to do with race, color or national origin.

Royko was right on. When parents abdicate their responsibility as parents, for whatever reason, it is absurd to expect the schools to instill in the student what they cannot, or will not. When a student, who otherwise tests out normally, continuously fails, becomes caught up in drugs and violence, and has no respect for himself and others, look to the parents or lack thereof for the root cause.

When I read that column, I could swear I heard dedicated, hard-working, responsible teachers cheering all over the Valley. Finally, somebody got it right and was willing to say it out loud.

- John McFadyen

Canoga Park

Writer replies

Several letter writers chided me after I fired volleys at the National Rifle Association for its anti-taggant stand. Taggants - small plastic particles that can help trace explosives - are bad, my challengers said. Their presence in bullets could endanger shooters, including police, by making gunpowder less reliable.

This is a smoke screen.

The gunpowder earmarked for bullets can easily be separated from gunpowder earmarked for explosives before taggants are added. The NRA's anti-taggant stand, therefore, is not about responsibly trying to keep gunpowder safe. It is, instead, yet another sad chapter in a larger book: Anything, regardless of its merits, that even remotely impinges on weaponry is to be resolutely fought. This is why I consider the NRA irresponsible and unfit to carry on the good fight of protecting the Second Amendment.

- Tom Braun

Littlerock

Jail not so hot

I am writing to you in response to an article you published Nov. 4, regarding the Los Angeles County jail system.

I would like to correct some of your errors. We do not get premium coffee. We get one cup per day of a mediocre brand for breakfast (I know the difference). The food is adequate, but also not premium. Lunch is bologna sandwiches, almost every day. Breakfast and supper are better.

We do not get cable TV. In fact, in our dorm we are lucky if we get a TV one day every two weeks.

- Harry Zelig

Los Angeles

CAPTION(S):

Photo

Photo: Thelton E. Henderson