RECTIFYING RALL

In his article "Buyer's Remorse" (July 21) examining the unexpected non-retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Ted Rall argues that it is "logical to assume that they [the justices] have joined a growing number of patriotic Republicans who fear that the Bush Administration is too radical for America… Their conclusion is obvious: the United States, and their legacies, would be better served by liberal Democrats than the brand of rightist extremists who would be appointed by George W. Bush."

Mr. Rall's understanding of the Court, and these two justices in particular, is flawed. While Rall's description likely does indeed fit Justice John Paul Stevens, the oldest member of the Court, it does not fit O'Connor or Rehnquist. In particular, a closer examination of Chief Justice Rehnquist's voting pattern on the Court reveals that he is often the lone justice who sides with the "hard-right zealots Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas." It is much more logical to assume that O'Connor and Rehnquist have not retired during the course of the Bush Administration because of the Bush v. Gore decision itself.

The Supreme Court has neither the power of the purse nor the sword. The only real power it has is its prestige. In the final analysis, prestige is the only reason the public and the other institutions of government in the United States acquiesce to decisions of the Court: Americans have accepted that the justices are wise, and that the country is supposed to accept their decisions. The Supreme Court does not wish to spend too much of that prestige in one place at one time, because the potential result is a decline in public support, which in turn means a potential decline in the Court's power. This is the reason why the Court only rarely decides cases on the most controversial issues in the country. Think about it: how often does the Supreme Court hand down a decision on abortion, or gun control, or homosexual rights? The recent "Pledge of Allegiance" case is an excellent example: the Court found a way to dispose of the case without rendering a substantive decision.

The Supreme Court was damaged by Bush v. Gore, as Rall notes. How much more damaging might it be for two justices who are popularly considered "pro-Bush" to retire, allowing the president to nominate their successors and leave what critics would call an illegitimate stamp on the Court for a generation. This is more likely what O'Connor and Rehnquist seek to avoid. The two justices are not waiting until President Bush leaves office to retire. They are hoping to retire less controversially after Mr. Bush has won re-election with - they hope - a clear mandate.

Michael Mitchell
Athens

MORE MEDDLING

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is seeking public comment on the newly proposed revisions for HIV prevention programming. The proposals will crack down on education materials - audiovisuals, pictorials, website HIV/AIDS education materials, and the like - used by many agencies, programs and projects that receive any federal CDC funding to do their prevention work.

The proposed revisions strongly favor "abstinence only" type prevention programming and increase surveillance over those programs that stress the effective use of condoms in the prevention of HIV/AIDS. For example, many prevention educators demonstrate proper use of condoms through pictorials or demonstrations on bananas. If such revisions are passed, this type of demonstration may cause an HIV/AIDS organization to lose their federal CDC funding. Further, stressed in the new provisions, are the benefits from abstaining from "promiscuous sexual activity," where the meaning of "promiscuous" is any relationship that is not mutually monogamous.

The proposal also tells us that no funds will be given to any program that "promotes or encourages homosexual activity." Is providing accurate information about homosexuality and "real world" relationships and how to stay safe promoting or encouraging behaviors that a conservative, right-wing CDC review panel has defined as devious and/or risky?

At the very least, the revisions will cause HIV/AIDS prevention programs to second-guess all safe-sex education methods. At most, the revisions could cause a major bleedover of Christian right values into a field where they really don't belong, where lives will be lost.

The CDC should be a sterling example of public health strategies and ethics that seek to reduce the incidence and spread of major viruses like HIV/AIDS.

These proposals seriously damage years of progress in the field of HIV/AIDS prevention. Please tell the CDC what you think. Without your voice, such proposals will be instituted. The comment period on this important issue ends August 16, 2004. Email comments to: HIVComments@cdc.gov or fax to 404-639-3125.

Pamela Szczygiel
Athens

CLOSED MINDS

I don't know Michael Moore. I've never met him or even seen him in person. I've never read his books or watched on of his documentaries.

The only time I actually witnessed one of his notorious moments of angering conservatives was when he gave his little speech at the MTV movie awards. It was just as boring then as it is now. I had no plans to go see his new movie when I first heard about it, but now I'm doing what I can to spread the word.

What caused such a change? Conservatives. If they're making such a stink about something that most people wouldn't have noticed in the first place — surely it must be good, right? Or at very least, it's definitely got to have a hardcore sex scene or something. Conservatives don't mobilize like this for nothing. There's got to be a reason. Hell, the movie's already out and they're STILL trying to stop it. That's like continuing to run after the race is over.

I am morally opposed to the hard-liners of any ideology. I don't like dogmatism and I don't like self-righteous individuals no matter what their stance is. As such, I usually just feed my news addiction by researching the stories themselves instead of listening to ideologues.

Novel idea eh?

This time, though, an ideologue has my attention. Not so much because of what he's saying, but because of what's being said about him. For anyone who actually follows the news instead of gleaning little bits from "The Daily Show," most of what Moore has to say in his new film is very old news.

Yet Michael Moore currently has a dedicated following bigger than any respectable journalist in America. He also has more dissenters than most pundits. All this hooplah for a guy that looks like what I'd expect the late Chris Farley's uncle to look like. I sincerely doubt that the animosity against him has to do with what he's saying or even that he's a credible source, but that he's saying it so damn loud and to such a big audience. Not to mention the fact that his dissenters have no adequate rebuttal.

Smart move on their part — counting on the apathy of Americans. The average person is too dense to just go, "Ummmm… why don't you just counter his so-called 'lies' with the truth?"

When political opponents have exhausted all hope of reasonable debate they usually seek other avenues to avoid defeat. This is what is happening now with Moore's new movie. Eventually, some smarter dissenter will take the time and invest the energy to see Fahrenheit 9/11 and write up a decent opposing argument. But it hasn't happened yet, and at this rate I don't expect it to.

Greg Woods
Athens