Ludicrous ticket law punishes the innocent
Is the state so desperate for money that it decides it is legal to put the onus on an innocent person for the violations of another ("Car buyers stuck with old fines
," Star-Bulletin, Oct. 3)?
How difficult is it for the state to go after its due traffic fines? If one can knowingly sell a "lemon" to an unsuspecting buyer, do you think a seller is going to be honest about outstanding traffic fines now that they can be passed on?
The rationale for this law is ludicrous because it punishes an innocent person for the actions of another. I'm sure, though, that our lawmakers will convince the public this makes sense. Right, and they'll sell you your own dirty laundry, too.
Ticketing the blameless violates due process
Regarding the story, "Car buyers stuck with old fines
" from previous owners (Star-Bulletin, Oct. 3):
Why is life so complicated? Government. We have a governor, a Legislature and a judiciary that are all supposed to ensure due process -- a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual. And this government is attempting in violation of our due process to force individuals to pay traffic fines for law violations committed by others.
Recently we had a judge who declared he would not accept cases in which a speeder was not going more than 10 miles over the speed limit. So why can't the judiciary suspend enforcing this stupid law until the governor and the Legislature get off their chairs and return our due process?
Kenneth L. Barker
Laws don't necessarily provide us with justice
Harold J. Morowitz repeats a story his father told: A man was engaged in a civil action. When the decision was rendered, he pleaded to the judge: "Justice, justice!" The judge replied "This is a court of law, not a court of justice."
We common folk are sometimes made to feel helpless in the face of apparently ill-considered decisions of "those in charge." Surely expecting an innocent person to be responsible for the legal liabilities of another is an example of "law, not justice." Perhaps the judiciary should more appropriately be called the "lawiary."
John M. Flanigan
Miers' 'crony' status should disqualify her
I have not yet read up on high court nominee Harriet Miers. I do not know the area or scope of her expertise or whether she is qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. Initially, and superficially, she certainly doesn't seem to be. Just being a woman, which is the strongest support I've heard offered so far, does not make her so.
But I do know that I oppose her confirmation on principle. She is a crony! She is a longtime supporter and personal friend of President Bush. Cronyism gave us Michael Brown and a score of others of his ilk. They may be (note: may be) very nice people, but niceness is not a qualification for this lifetime appointment.
Remember the last time the Senate approved someone against its better judgement just to avoid a politically incorrect fight? We got Clarence Thomas! And one such error is more than enough.
Why did Democrats accept Harbin?
This addresses the goof-up in the appointment of Bev Harbin
as representative of the 28th District by the governor. Somehow a clouded past was missed during the governor's screening process.
But Harbin had just joined the Democratic Party. The party accepted her. What's the deal here? What does the Democratic Party (or any political party) stand for? If they accept members just willy-nilly with no value, check or screen, what does membership in a party stand for?
It looks like the answer is "not much." It makes the proclamation "I am a proud member of the so and so party" rather empty, don't you think? Otherwise, the questions of why she was accepted as a member and why the party does not now expel her would be on the table for discussion.
Richard O. Rowland
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii