Re: Ruben Navarrette's July 2 essay, "Judicial activism? You bet":
Navarrette's perpetual pro-Hispanic agenda is really getting boring.
Navarrette supports the activist Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, and is pro-amnesty for illegal aliens. He generalizes about reverse discrimination based on his dishonest obfuscation of the facts in the New Haven, Conn., action, Ricci v. DeStefano, by the Supreme Court. The case has nothing to do with Princeton, and there was no "disparate impact" on minorities.
Navarrette twists the truth. The facts are very specific, and Navarrette's ranting doesn't change the facts. The decision was based not on a historic pass rate, as Navarrette argues, but on the specifics of one particular exam. White firefighters were denied promotion because Sotomayor upheld the lower court's decision, based on the fear of a potential lawsuit by black firefighters who did not pass the exam.
Sotomayor is not the sharpest pencil in the drawer -- by her own admission.
Standards should not be lowered to accommodate the less-qualified. I believe that fair-minded Americans would agree with the Supreme Court's decision.
If and when I need the services of our firefighters, I want to be assured that they are the best qualified, both mentally and physically, and I don't care what color they are.
The Star might save space on the Opinion page when it feels compelled to publish Navarrette's opinions. Just print his photo, name and subject -- no more -- and leave a couple of blank lines for the readers to fill in the expected Navarrette drivel.
-- Bill Gourlay, Westlake Village