Supreme Court nominees and religious beliefs
The most serious concern with the nominations of John Roberts and Harriet Miers is the prevailing attitude that appointees to the Supreme Court have no obligation to explain their judicial philosophy, how it would apply to their interpretations of the law, and how their personal viewpoints and beliefs will affect their decisions. This should be the very core of concerns about the qualifications of judicial nominees. Anyone applying for a job in any other field would be required to answer questions about their future performance and decisions. Why should one of the highest offices in the land be any different?
It is obvious that Bush has chosen both his nominations because they do not have a substantial judicial paper trail.
The question with Miers is not what her religious beliefs are. The question is can she put aside her personal religious beliefs and rule on the law and the Constitution as it is written?
The answer to that question may be why Focus on the Family’s James Dobson is not complaining about this nomination.
Mark D. Benner, Anton
…
Why is anything James Dobson says or does newsworthy? He is a religious leader. Leave him at the church. Last I checked, I live in the United States of America – a country founded on the ideals of freedom of religion. This country was settled by citizens seeking religious asylum. Suddenly, the country is being run by religious leaders. Top officials are confiding in them. They are endorsing from the pulpit. If they are going to be so involved, then change their non-profit status and start collecting taxes. If no church taxes are being paid, then what they have to say is not news. The press is feeding the nonsense by giving the religious leaders exactly what they want: free air time.
Elizabeth DiPaolo, Golden
…
Journalistic use of surveys and statistics
Re: “Seat-belt use slips for adults but edges up for children,” Oct. 12 news brief.
In your story on seat-belt use “slipping,” the numbers cited were 79.3 percent in 2004 and 79.2 percent in 2005, “according to the latest observational survey.” Goodness gracious.
This “observational survey” is clearly a sample. A sample is used as an estimate of a population. Every sample has some uncertainty built into it, called a confidence interval. Political polls often state that interval, e.g., +/- 3 percent.
A decline of one-tenth of 1 percent would not be considered a reliable estimate of a change in a population unless the survey was truly random and had hundreds of thousands of observations. And even if the sample was ridiculously huge, a change of 0.1 percent would not be substantive or meaningful. The obvious analysis should have been “no change.”
I like and read your newspaper paper daily. Readers like me have an expectation that writers, reporters and editors have an understanding of how numbers are used. In our world filled with numbers, this skill is required for a reporter to be skeptical and to be able to interpret the meaning of the numbers. I expect and require better.
Steve Billig, Englewood
…
Immigration in the U.S.
Re: “The United States’ immigration problem,” Oct. 12 Open Forum.
As a former resident of Denver, I continue to read the newspapers online to keep me informed of what is going on in the city. A recent discussion on illegal immigration made me laugh. Some people really do not get it.
The problem is not only that poor people are trying to get a better life or that employers don’t check the background of who they employ. The problem is each and every one of us. As long as we continue to request the lowest price on anything, we will have to tolerate illegal immigration.
We all contribute to the issue when we turn a blind eye on how our food is cooked, our houses are built or our landscaping is done. Companies are not non-profit entities; they have to make money to survive. If we keep choosing the ones employing the illegals, then what are the law-abiding employers going to do? They have to compete or disappear.
So before we throw the stone on the immigrants or the employers, maybe we should take a hard look at our own habits.
Annie Hamel, Ashburn, Va.
