| OCR Text |
Show a hr alt iakc Friday Morning Section July cLribunc 25, 1986 A Federal Courts Should Attract The Exceptionally Qualified The White House managed to get its questionable nomination approved for the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But at a price not worth paying. When the Senate, on a tie vote Wednesday, refused to reconsider its previous close approval for Daniel Manions appointment to the court, the prolonged dispute about the nominees qualifications ended. But not the - debate about Reagan administration federal judge selections. Alert to the possibility that the matter bids to become a simmering political issue, the Justice Department got out a news release last week contending the Reagan administrations federal judgeship appointments, in the overall, rank as good or better than those made by all recent White House predecessors. The comparison is based on American Bar Association ratings. As the Justice Department explained, the ABA uses four grades for judicial nominees: Exceptionally well qualified, well qualified, qualified and not qualified. So far, this method concludes, according to the Justice Department report: Approximately 52 percent of Reagan judicial app''ir-- ' ' nts have been well qualified oi exceptionally well qualified, compared to 55 percent for (President Jimmy) Carter, 48 percent for (President Jerry) Ford, 51 percent for (President Richard) Nixon and 55 percent for (President Lyndon B.) Johnson." Beyond that, however, the ABA is reported to have ranked more of President Reagans nominees for the circuit and district courts as exceptionally well qualified than those selected by any president since Mr. Johnson. All that being conceded, the Man-io- n confirmation remains a blemish. He was never ranked beyond qualified faw prob- truth-in-taxati- Worse than that, however, were the tactics used in the Senate to push this particular appointment through. Some Senators admitted supporting the White House or changing votes to back the nominee after receiving assurances their favorites for other judgeship vacancies in their districts would be named. One report claimed stood by Sen. Paula Hawkins, the nomination when President Reagan promised he would make a personal appearance in Florida on behalf of her reelection. And thats what he was doing when the Senate voted Wednesday to reject the earlier confirmation, which had passed on the 7 slimmest margin. Its true many Democrat, liberal senators opposed Mr. Manion because of his past, outspoken conservatism. But moderate to conservative senators, several themselves lawyers, also rebelled, claiming the nominee simply didnt measure up. In many respects, then, this sequence has seriously tarnished the judicial nomination procedure. If the Reagan administration, the justice department now and in the future, wants to be fully, unarguably proud of conspicuous talent and ability possessed by federal court nominations, considerably more discretion will be used than was displayed during the Manion fiasco. Certainly there are plenty of attorneys in this country, easily found exceptionally qualified by any lawyer rating method, who would be willing and available to eminently serve as distinguished members of the nations vitally important judiciary. R-Fl- 49-4- 9 48-4- or Confusion? Cover-u- p Utahs and a lawyer group in Chicago, where he will preside at the second highest level of the federal judiciary, declared him unqualified. As did deans of 40 law schools from around the country. ably will do what lawmakers intendAlert the public to proposed property tax increases while theres still time to have an impact. As with many new laws, however, its first years performance is revealing a few problems. In compliance with the 1985 Tax Increase Disclosure Act, government entities throughout the state have hearstarted advertising ings in local newspapers. Meanwhile, county auditors are sending property owners notices that their taxes are about to increase. The Utah Taxpayers Association, . a lobby group largely comprised of local businessmen, contends that taxing districts are violating the new law by omitting or misrepresenting information. Every notice weve seen so far has been incomplete, misleading or false, according to the groups spokesman, Jack A. Olson. What was supposed to bring about full disclosure of property tax hikes, he said, has turned out to be a tool for covering up tax increases. Apparently the tax group has helped set a few taxing districts straight, because figures in at least one case, were changed from one notice to the next. Still, Mr. Olson may be exaggerating a point or two. While the tax watchdog insists the law specifically requires disclosure of the percentage increase of property tax revenues and the per- ed: tax-increa- se centage increase of the total budget, theres room for doubt. Chapter 114 of the Utah Code does allow the public hearing on the proposed tax increase to coincide with the hearing on the proposed budget of the taxing district. And it forbids a taxing district from budgeting a revenue increase unless it advertises its intention to do so at the same time that it advertises its intention to fix its budget for the forthcoming fiscal year. The statute even offers a sample ad that calls for the tax increase percentage, but it does not clearly state that both the budget increase and the tax increase figures must be advertised. The laws wording and inexperience among taxing districts may be violamore to blame for the tions than deliberate attempts to cover up tax increases. Therefore, it might be worth the Utah Legislatures time to review this years experience to see if some minor amendments would clarify their intentions. so-call- Meanwhile, however, the Utah Taxpayers Association is more than welcome to audit various tax increases and public notices around the state to help ensure compliance with the Tax Increase Disclosure Act. And taxpayers should take seriously the invitations to particiin local the budgeting process, or pate no one but themselves to have theyll blame for larger tax bills. well-publiciz- Ernest Conine Deep Missile Cut Could Hurt U.S. Los Angeles Times Service The flurry of diplomatic activity suggests that there may yet be a summit meeting late this year between President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev. And, despite all the setbacks, the prospects for a new strategic arms reduction agreement still look alive. That being the case, it is important for the administration to get its act together not just on the crucial question of strategic defenses but also on the issue of how deeply the offensive missile forces on each side should be cut and how those cuts should be made. As some critics keep warning, an agreement on missile reduction would not necessarily translate into a more stable nuclear balance and, therefore, a safer world. If not carefully drawn and implemented, such an agreement could have the opposite effect. includSome highly respected experts ing Brent Scowcroft, who headed the Presidents Commission on Strategic Forces three urge the administration to alter years ago its current deep-cu- t proposal to take better account of this danger. Public discussion of arms control has been dominated in recent months by the Star Wars issue. And understandably so. The Soviet Union has made it clear that its chief goal in the strategic arms reduction talks at Geneva is to stop Reagans Strategic Defense Initiative. The chief American goal is to negotiate reductions in the Soviet offensive missile force, particularly in the number of warheads aboard the Soviet fleet of missiles. But the Sosuperheavy viets say that they wont agree to deep cuts in strategic nuclear forces unless the U.S. president's Star Wars program is confined by treaty to laboratory experiments. The Soviet demand is extreme, but a compromise allowing some development work might be negotiable. Reagan, however, has refused so far to put Star Wars squarely on the bargaining table, and this refusal is generally seen as the biggest obstacle to serious negotiations. As things stand, the Soviets have more d missiles of than 2,300 land- - and at least 700 more intercontinental range than the United States has. But when you throw bombers and cruise missiles into the equation the two sides come out about even on warheads, with around 10,000 each. Reagan and Gorbachev agreed at their summit meeting last November on a negotie ating goal of 50 percent reductions in offensive weapons. In the ensuing exchange of proposals the two governments proved to be far apart on how and where cuts would be made. But both sides offered formulas that would leave each with about warheads. 6,000 missile-born- e Under the American proposal, only 4,500 warheads could be put aboard ballistic missiles. Of these, no more than 3,000 could be d ICBMs. There was deployed on also a formula intended to cause a reduction in the number of Soviet heavy missiles that are considered especially threatening to the d U.S. missiles. survivability of Seven weeks ago Gorbachev unveiled a more modest proposal that would only cut each side to 8,000 warheads on strategic weapons but seemed to narrow the definitional differences and to be more flexible on the Star Wars issue. Washington is in the process of putting together a response. The critics point out that, even with fewer nuclear warheads on each side, nuclear stability could be threatened if one side's nuclear deterrent is significantly more vulnerable than the others to destruction in a surland-base- d good strategy. And, the critics warn, the existing U.S. proposal for deep cuts could, if accepted by the Soviets, make American nuclear forces more vulnerable than they are now. The U.S. proposal, if accepted by Moscow as it stands, would leave the Soviets with fewer warheads and delivery vehicles aimed at U.S. targets, just as we would have fewer aimed at them. But there would also be fewer missiles on each side to be targeted. Thus the ratio of Soviet warheads to U.S. missile silos, and to our missile-firin- g submarines, could actually increase. Such a result could be avoided by a careful structuring of the deep cuts in warheads to spread the allowable number of warheads among the maximum number of missile launchers allowed under an agreement. This would confront the Soviets with a maximum number of targets, thereby enhancing the survivability of the U.S. force. Unfortunately, the administration is going in precisely the opposite direction. The Reagan team, for example, wants to MX misdeploy at least 100 siles able to carry 10 warheads each. and development are proceeding on land-base- land-base- prise attack. A nation feeling itself vulnerable is forced into a posture of response, which is the opposite of hair-trigg- single-warhea- At the very least, the new U.S. proposal should abandon the call for a ban on mobile ICBMs in order to leave room for an armada of several hundred highly survivable, singlewarhead rUJgetmen. It should also reemphasize the goal of causing the Soviets to reduoe their force of superheavy, multiwar- head missiles. The Geneva talks on strategic arms are not going anywhere anyway unless the impasse over Star Wars is resolved. But if that hurdle can be overcome, it is vital to remember that deep cuts in the offensive nuclear forces on each side are desirable, and may be achievable but should not be sought at the cost of creating imbalances that would make the world more dangerous than it already is. Dovish Shultz Is Easy Prey For Hawkish Weinberger News America Syndicate You sit down for lunch with Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, as I did Monday, and quickly learn anew why he holds such a permanent and powerful place within the Reagan administration. Weinberger is one of the few officials in town who can tell you with a straight face that no war exists between him and Secre WASHINGTON sea-base- long-rang- small a the Midgetman mobile missile. But Reagans current proposal would ban mobile missiles. To stay within the warhead limit, there would be pressures to speed the retirement of Poseidon submarines and hold down the number of Trident subs ultimately deployed; each Trident carries 24 missiles armed with probably eight warheads each. The smaller the number of subs, the easier they are to find and destroy. tary of State George Shultz, and then go on to wage that war with charming skill. Weinberger has a great knack for telling you that he has no agenda, no propaganda motive for asking six news people to lunch, even as he goes about defending Star Wars, the Pentagon budget, the sending of military men into Bolivia to fight a war against drugs. In soft words that are not strident and do not reek of ideology, Weinberger lays out a hard line that says the SALT I, SALT II and missile treaties were all contrary to U.S. security interests in important ways, and that the Soviets are cheats who violated every one of these treafar-rig- anti-ballist- ties. Weinberger admitted only to an occasional disagreement with Shultz, and to institutional differences" between the State Department and the Pentagon. Then, with pleasant shrewdness, he went about making sure that the media give President Reagan another dose of his views about dealing with the Soviet Union. This man, who has presided over what he admits is an "unprecedented" 5vz years of peacetime military buildup in this country, says SALT II (not ratified, but honored until now) is against U.S. interests because it allows for expansion of the Soviet military, it is not verifiable and it has been violated by the Russians. He says the ABM treaty was bad for the United States because it got in the way of efforts to develop a defensive strategy (such as Star Wars). Weinberger says that an obligation to mankind requires that the U.S. refrain from making any arms deal that involves halting the Strategic Defense Initiative, the Pentagons effort to deploy a system to destroy Soviet missiles in outer space long before they might reach and destroy parts of the United States. He says that a lot of progress is being made on this system to render Soviet offensive missiles obsolete. But what if SDI did render their missiles obsolete? If the Soviets couldn't destroy our missiles in outer space, wouldnt they be bordering on panic and perhaps try to go to war in desperation? No, Weinberger says, because President Reagan has promised that once we have the technology to render their missiles obsolete, well give the Soviets the technology so they can render our missiles worthless. Then nuclear war will become not just unthinkable, but impossible. It is impossible for me to imagine Reagan listening to Weinberger on these issues and then choosing to believe someone with a viewpoint more accommodating to the Soviets. Does this make Weinberger the great wheel, churning up a never-endin- g arms race? He would never accept such a characterization. The Soviets want and need an arms agreement, he says. I want one, too. I just dont want the pressures of time and American public opinion to push us into a bad agreement. The bottom line, I think, is that Reagan is likely to leave office without any meaningful arms-contrdeal with the Soviets because his friend Weinberger is going to win the war with Shultz that, of course, doesnt really exol ist. Another Viewpoint New South Africa Policy? Reagan Changes Nothing on Moral Issues From The New York Times President Reagan's monthlong "reassessment" of his attitude toward South Africa ended Tuesday without an iota of change or regret. With faint damns he lavished new sympathy. if not praise, on the white authorities in Pretoria, offering a tired restatement of the failed strategy of "constructive engagement. Yes, he acknowledged, some bad things are happening under a repressive state of emergency. But the regime has been to provoked and means well, and sanctions Papunish its racism would be immoral. tient blacks will in time gain a voice in their own country, impatient help the Sovi jdacks et cause and undermine America's strategic interests. denouncing To South African moderates of every color who strive to avert a terrible conflict, Reagan offered a counsel of patience but no help. At times he seemed puzzled that they fail to appreciate a relative (to Africa) prosperity and the doling out of reforms (to the dismay of "extreme" white supremacists). To an American Congress wrestling with the real difficulties of applying more pressure with sanctions, the president tried to have it both ways, He claimed credit for punitive steps already taken, but then meekly followed British Prime Minister Thatcher in Thatcher, at least, is consistent. She also opposes sanctions against Libya and Com- nant." sanctions as utterly repug- munists Reagan proposed calibrated steps that might encourage black-whit- e negotiations about power-sharinbut refused to invoke the threat of even eventual penalties if the repression continues Even in strategic terms, Reagans thumb landed clumsily on the white side of the scales. He stressed the Wests stake in South Africa's important minerals and sea lanes and cited Soviet designs on the region But nowhere in his reckoning was there any recognition of Americas enormous stake in befriending black Africans generally and the increasingly alienated blacks who are destined to prevail in South Africa. Reagans suggested agenda for action was not only timid but out of date. He called for a "timetable" for the elimination of apartheid and the release of all political prisoners, including Nelson Mandela, the jailed leader of the African National Congress. He took no account of Pretorias recent rejection of the same proposals when advanced by a Commonwealth mediating team. The rejection was so brusque that mediators came these away agitating for sanctions by all Commonwealth nations Indeed, by saying that Mandela should be freed to participate in the political process," Reagan appeared to be endorsing Pretoria's demand that he first accept its process for consultation with blacks. The crisis in South Africa is everything that Reagan said. Time is running out for those who abhor violence. There are conflicts within each racial group as well as between the races. To the extent they can, the Western governments should act in concert to bolster the forces of decency to head off a catastrophe. They should have channels to all contending parties. But having accurately described the maelstrom, Reagan promises aimlessly to remain "engaged." He came up deaf not only to one of the great moral issues of his time, but even to the importunings of the Congress down the street. He would have been wiser to say nothing at all. |
