PUBLIC FORUM : PROTESTS OVER PROP. 209 SUSPENSION CONTINUE.

Re the Nov. 24 Opinions article, ``Some more equal than others,'' by Peter Schrag:

Thank the Good Lord for brilliant minds such as Peter Schrag to decipher the hard, complicated issues for the rest of us dolts, the voting public. Without Schrag and other constitutional lawyers, how could we possibly understand that not discriminating is actually discriminating? That to deny society the ability to racially discriminate places ``special burdens on racial minorities within the government process,'' making it ``more difficult for certain minorities to achieve legislation that is in their interest.''

In other words, makes it more difficult to get even with another group for iniquities of the past. And isn't that what ``affirmative'' action was all about anyway - getting even? Or as Schrag and his ilk term it in their Orwellian Newspeak, ``using narrowly tailored programs to remedy the effects of the past discrimination in employment and contracting.''

My question is, if it's payback time, how will we know how much payback is enough? Well, sir, I say enough is enough. In fact, it's more than enough. We learned from the past, racial discrimination is immoral and stupid; now let's move on.

And you're right, Mr. Schrag: `` . . . no one . . . will understand the logic of any ruling that would delay the implementation of Proposition 209 . . . '' because none exists.

We citizens have had it up to our eyeballs with idiotic legal arguments ``proving'' up is down, black is white, good is really bad. Bunk, you bozos. It's having to deal with that sort of nonsense that prompted our forefathers to conceive this nation in the first place.

And if Schrag and his ``constitutional lawyer'' chums aren't too busy proving two plus two equals five, remember that this country was, and is still, dedicated to the rights and liberties of the individual, not groups or parts of groups or lobbies or factions. Any legislation favoring one race to the exclusion of another race is racism, pure, ugly and simple, regardless of which way the arrow is pointed.

Sorry my argument isn't brilliant. Just sensible.

- Gary Graham 

Granada Hills

After reading Joe Gelman's article about U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson's apparent lack of objectivity while reviewing Proposition 209 (``Judge's doublethink: Nonbias equals bias,'' Viewpoint, Dec. 1), I felt the same anger your readers expressed in the Dec. 2, Public Forum letters.

Some readers felt that we were not living in a democracy, because it appeared that the majority did not rule and a number suggested that federal judges be elected every four or six years, to make them accountable to the voters.

There is no doubt that this truly is a serious problem, but I think making these offices political would be a big mistake. Hopefully, the Constitution needs to be interpreted by people of integrity who cannot be influenced by the politics or special interest groups associated with a given issue.

One bad unconstitutional law could very easily spell disaster for our way of life; so, we need to continue protecting federal judges against external influences.

If it takes time to override Henderson's restraining order against Proposition 209, I feel it's a small price to pay for this protection. We've lived with affirmative action, right or wrong, for years and a little while longer cannot really hurt. However, it does appear to me that Henderson does have an objectivity problem and I would be more than willing to support an impeachment effort against him.

- Duane E. Halpape

Woodland Hills

If the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups like it really wanted to do something useful, they would use their resources and taxpayer dollars to strengthen America's right to vote on all matters of ``mass public interest'' at all levels of government.

- Mel Bryson

Northridge

It would seem to me that even if you did vote, it didn't count.

I, however, have a solution or two. On all ballots in all categories, you have a spot for ``none-of-the-above.'' If nobody gets more than 50 percent, they must have another election for that position with a new offering of candidates.

All federal judges must read the Constitution of the United States and pass a test on it.

All state judges must pass a test based on their state Constitution.

Supreme Court justices can be appointed for a 10-year term, then must be elected thereafter. Federal judges would do likewise.

The U.S. attorney general would be an elected official.

Maybe this is too far-fetched an idea but, then - I believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

- James P. Biddle

Palmdale

I can't believe what I see. A U.S. district judge overrules the will of the majority of voters in California. His explanation is that the burden imposed by the demand for nondiscrimination ``falls on minorities and women.''

This wording reminds me of the ``Enabling Act,'' which Adolf Hitler pushed through in March 1933, just weeks after he was appointed chancellor of Germany. Its pious sounding name was, in translation, ``Law for the Relief of the Distress of the People and the Reich.'' His opponents he overruled, with the argument that the concept of equality before the law belonged to the ``filth and rottenness of the past.''

This law enabled him to undo the constitution of the country, because it gave him the power to pass any law he pleased and he promptly did. That's when the Germans first heard about quotas.

My history book of that period clearly states: ``Secondary schools and universities may not admit any more Jews than their corresponding number, within the general population, which is 1 percent.'' The same quota applied to professions in the fields of law, medicine, theater, the media, etc. And that was only the beginning.

The wording of Proposition 209 gives me hope that this will never happen here, but the wording of Judge Henderson's ruling reminds me that it could happen anywhere, even here, if we let it happen.

- Eleonore Boer

Newhall

Is this a democracy or isn't it?

Now there is an answer to why the voters don't turn out at election time.

Some liberal judge decides that the voters were wrong in their overwhelming support of the Proposition 209 and puts their decision on hold. Why?

Is it right to ignore the preference of the electorate? Any proposition that was approved by the voters could be invalidated by one man sitting in a judicial position. What right has he, one man, to cancel the democratic process of this country.

Perhaps the voters should offer a proposition in the next election to prohibit any judge from changing the will of the people.

- Earl D. Horwitz

North Hills

There is an issue that has not been spoken of since the approval of Proposition 209 in November. This initiative was passed by Democrats, not Republicans.

The November 1996 election will be known as the election where the ``Republicans stayed home.'' They did not get out and vote. As an example they lost some state and federal seats to Democrats in what was thought were Republican strongholds, Glendale and Orange County.

Second, the Democratic Party is the majority party here in California. So in order for a proposition to pass, it has to have the support of some Democrats. What Californians should be asking is, ``What is going on in the Democratic Party?'' Their leaders are saying one thing and their members are doing another? Maybe these propositions (187, 209) are not really related to a political party, but to an awakening of the people of California, whether they be Asian-American, African-American, Latino, Middle Eastern or white.

- Mary Castrillo

Granada Hills

You could see it coming, couldn't you? A federal judge has put Proposition 209 on hold in anticipation of objections by various civil rights groups.

More than 5 million Californians voted for Prop. 187 with the same results.

Henry David Thoreau wrote, ``If you see a man approaching you with the obvious intent of doing you good, run for your life.'' Unfortunately, we can't run away from the influence special interest groups have upon the state.

- Hugh M. Wolfgang

Canoga Park

`What's sauce for the goose . . .'

What a heartwarming spectacle: Propositions 187 and 209, despite having been voted in by the electorate, are now being disabled in the courts, thanks to the effrontery of their losing and indignant opponents, among them Congresswoman Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, and Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl, D-Encino.

But wait: Now a Los Angeles Superior Court judge, Malcolm Mackey, has thrown out an earlier jury verdict favored by Waters and Kuehl, a racial discrimination verdict against Pitney Bowes Inc. (``Rejected bias verdict angers lawmakers,'' Daily News, Nov. 26) - and who's squawking about that?

You guessed it: Waters and Kuehl, who obviously can't stand the taste of their own medicine, don't think that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and can dish it out but can't take it.

- Dan Manes 

Tarzana

CAPTION(S):

Photo

Photo: Chief U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson has awakened in many a Daily News reader an intense interest in the works of Orwell.