OCR Text |
Show 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ENTERPRISE 1 1 1 1 1 19 pragmatic dogmatics Six months hence we shall be able to ascertain what effect, if any, has been had upon this years elections by GOP State Chairman W. Robert Wrights tax limitation offensive. Relatively quiescent during the first ten months of his term, Wright became aggressive indeed on May 12. He urged, in a letter to Democratic Governor Scott Matheson, legislation to limit governments taxation prerogatives. He flailed the structural flaw in government which has allowed its insatiable appetite for tax revenues to run rampant. The theme was repeated in Wrights May IS mass meeting in to show he isnt kidding address, and rt his pledge of for any Republican candidate who does not hew to his limitation non-suppo- line. By any objective test, Wrights proposal is needed, should be heeded, and should accum- ulate political capital for the GOP. Over the past decade, Utah taxes have accelerated even more rapidly than has inflation: 20 percent more for property exactions, 160 percent more for ones on income, and 240 percent more for ones on sales. Nationwide, federal employment basis has grown but 1.9 percent since 1958, while state employment has swollen 182 percent in the same period. We now on a per-capi- ta pay a higher proportion of our production to government than did medieval serfs to their and practical politics masters. Whether Wrights party and Utah will join in his parade is, however, at best questionable. For the brutal fact is that government federal, state, and local; educational, is the proprietary, ministerial, and military prime fount of Utah employment. And, if those employees and their families ever decide our tax savings imperil their jobs (no matter how unnecessary those jobs may be), tax limitation will fare worse than did George McGovern at the local polls. J. Bracken Lees state-wid- e political career terminated when he enraged educators alone. Utter oblivion undoubtedly awaits the politician who also lashes other public employees into a fury. Under those circumstances, Wright may discover that Republican candidates are less receptive to his brandishments than they are to the importunings coupled with cash campaign contributions-- of organizations like the by Kent Shearer r wmuex Pip mr. HSH kum), CRIMf 10 Ffiise cus h STOP A GRIMF PftClSHV THf Pf-- ex- imp Kcr OF A MIWP SUCH AS 06, LA m?- m tu nw BRFAtfUfc m am ? erne-- 100 - tax-pai- SiEOies AMP mm. Me- - mace OFMVfVTY, Feuou). wmce, j.a mve, v me act mm i iaw true FSRf St isms? CBMHKSia) OF A WXJR Utah Education Association and the Utah Public Employees Association. If that proves the case, Wright will find himself in the unenviable situation of a leader without followers. If, on the other hand, Wright is able to refine his position to persuade the bulk of the d work force that hes not talking about their jobs, but rather of those of the bums they can identify among their fellow servants, he quite likely has struck the purest of political gold. A cause that is both right and popular is the rarest of commodities, and its finder will reap great rewards. So, only time and events will tell. The ultimate appraisal will come this November. "-SRSFJB- h THE Wright, tax limitation, MS WXM&b- - ear , UgOFfgMSf. a) no). ssae&'.JJf' :ifJ& T&IU My dire predictions of what the United States Judicial Selection Commission of Utah was up to CEnterprise , May 8) proved to be true faster than even I had expected. The very day my comments, which in the nature of things were composed more than a week earlier, were published the commission announced its nominees for the pending vacancy on the federal district bench. As predicted, with but two exceptions the slate of nominees bears little resemblance to the announced qualifica- tions. by Parker M. Nielson Stacked selection becomes reality Rather obvious is that there has been an attempt to stack the nomination in favor of particular favorites, by eliminating virtually all candidates who met the stated qualifications. The more important point is that this commission has attempted to sandbag the President, by creating an appearance of merit selection which is contrary to fact. The President, who has ultimate responsibility for the appointment, has determined to approach the always difficult task of predicting which rather clear persons might become good judges by establishing determinaguidelines, and dispensing with purely subjective tions. Those guidelines contemplate that judicial appointees should possess those qualities which great judges have usually demonstrated in the past, such as a capacity for legal scholarship and substantial trial and appelate practice in the federal courts, over a large number years. Involvement with efforts to improve the delivery of legal services, or to improve the practice of law to the such as in teaching or lecturing on subjects related A business of the federal courts was also considered relevant. be adjudicated by the sensitivity to those whose interests must federal courts is another matter appropriate to the search. The list of nominees that this commission has come up with does not remotely conform to those guidelines. Only one of them, or perhaps two, could be considered legitimate and viable candidates, according to the established guidelines. The others may be talented individuals in other fields, and I do not suggest otherwise, but they have no meaningful experience with federal courts on either the practical or theoretical level. One is a very good state judge, who the committee may have correctly thought would make a good federal judge, but nevertheless does not meet the criteria the President has prescribed. Of course, it may be countered that many great judges Cardoza and Holmes, to name two-h- ad no such prior experience. That, however, is irrelevant, for the President has not delegated to this commission the determination of whether such exceptions are justified. The lackluster list this commission has produced ignores outstanding lawyers who are highly regarded on a national level for their accomplishments in the field of federal law, like David Watkiss, solid state judges with a rich background in federal practice, like David Winder, and scholars in the field of federal law, such as Professor John Flynn and former Professor Dan Stewart. And the commission ignored many others. The White House should look beyond the recommendations of this commission, and compare the quality of the candidates it has produced with those that it ignored --and reject its brash play at dictating a choice the Constitution reposes in the President. |