Judicial appointments are also political

To the editor:

In your April 7 article, "Experts dissect judicial selection bill," Northwestern law professor Stephen Presser argued that the public isn't necessarily equipped to determine who is the most qualified judicial candidate.

That's a typically elitist point of view.

I believe that the public should choose their elected judges based upon years of private practice; the area of law practiced; the number of cases won; the number of cases settled; and the number of appeals won as well as the type of case in each category. Incumbents would have to provide the same information regarding cases they heard as well as the number of decisions reversed and the type of case involved.

As it is now, the public has no idea about a candidate's abilities and areas of practiced knowledge. Consequently, the candidate with the biggest war chest or name recognition gets the seat.

The sample ballot should show all the above information, just as it does for ballot questions.

In addition, the State Bar of Nevada could ban contributions by attorneys to judicial campaigns. Or, if that is an infringement on speech, require each attorney via dues to fund one pot that would be evenly distributed among the candidates by the bar. Candidates would then be on a level playing field financially and the question of bias before the bench would be diminished.

Appointments are too political. Voters need to know what is being offered to them.

Richard Nocilla

LAS VEGAS

Too loud

To the editor:

Thanks to Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman and Councilman Steve Wolfson, the issue of the airplane "right turn" departure that the Federal Aviation Administration inflicted upon us still has a chance of being overturned (Thursday Review-Journal). We can only hope it will be.

When my family purchased our home in Peccole Ranch three years ago, it was with the expectation that we would live in a nice quiet neighborhood. Now I am awakened every morning by planes flying low over my home and "hitting the afterburners" trying to climb to higher elevations as they leave Las Vegas. Once-pleasant afternoons of reading or chatting on our quiet patio are now marred by this loud noise as plane after plane passes over at very short intervals.

I am told this change was necessary, with the airlines saving money on fuel. It has not been explained why we should want to contribute to the financial well-being of the airlines. Yet it can be argued that this noisy imposition diminishes the value of our property, and therefore is a type of tax -- or perhaps a transfer payment from us to the airlines. This "tax" is extracted without our permission. Does the phrase, "Taxation without representation" ring any bells? Tea, anyone?

In addition, and even more importantly, it is a form of pollution -- and not just severe noise pollution, but also pollution of our air. Who knows what falls on us as the hydrocarbon fuels of these planes are ignited by the jet engines? Has anybody said it's good for us? Among carcinogens, hydrocarbons rank very highly. No one has made any statements that it won't damage our property or our health.

Where are our elected officials in Washington on this issue? It is my understanding that the "F" in "FAA" stands for "Federal." Our man in Washington, Harry Reid, seems too preoccupied with trying to bring down the president of the United States to trouble himself over this "small matter" in his home state.

Bill Conklin

LAS VEGAS

Special treatment

To the editor:

The city of Las Vegas has decided to spend $300,000 more, on top of the $100,000 already spent, to fight the Federal Aviation Administration over the "right turn" departing aircraft make over the northwest valley.

Why does the city spend tax dollars on something that council members admitted was probably futile? Why does the city give special treatment to one area of the community but not others? The planes are just as loud (and louder) everywhere else in the valley.

I wonder: If the mayor lived in the southwest valley and instead served on the Clark County Commission, would he still be wasting so much time and tax money fighting the "right turn" or would he be fighting the long-standing "left turn" from McCarran International Airport over the southwest? And what about the rest of the valley?

The city's action suggests that only the northwest communities are worthy of such a fight. The city is growing. The airport is growing, and things have to change to keep up with the growth. The people complaining about the noise should live right by the airport, like I do.

Noise you say? They have nothing to complain about.

JEANNE MCNAIR

LAS VEGAS