California Courts

"State Study Says Courts Are Rife With Sex Bias," reported in The Times on March 24th! It took this special committee three years to discover widespread sex discrimination in California courts? Is there anywhere on earth that is not dominated by men? Racism is a terrible problem but sexism is the greatest problem on earth. If and when brotherhood of all races reigns worldwide will they then address the issue of sexism and concede their ignominy against females? Ever since savage and envious men destroyed people's beliefs in goddesses, honor of their queens and motherhood and murdered creative femininity's rightful roles on earth, every evil and destruction has ruled in its stead.

Re "Alternative presidential bid falters," May 16 It always seemed quixotic to launch a grass-roots movement from the top. In the unlikely scenario that a candidate was elected president, what sort of clout would she or he have in a Congress that lacked even a single supporter? By contrast, consider the "tea party. " Whether or not you agree with its agenda, it is undeniable that the dozens of representatives it helped elect have made their presence felt. Americans Elect should endorse candidates already running for Congress - whether Democratic or Republican - who meet its criteria, and put up candidates of its own in districts where none do. H.A. Drake Santa Barbara ALSO: Letters: Eugenics in America's past Letters: The media and Mitt Romney Letters: California courts feel the cuts

The state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that defendants who lose in small claims courts have no right to a jury trial when they appeal to higher courts. The court unanimously found that while losing small claims defendants have a right to a new trial before a Superior Court judge, they have no right to demand that a jury review their claims. The justices noted that the small claims system, set up by the Legislature in 1921, is supposed to be informal and should resolve problems quickly.

A narrow majority of state residents believes that the passage of Proposition 187 last November was a good thing, and slightly more than half feel the controversial initiative should be implemented immediately rather than delayed by the courts, according to a new Los Angeles Times Poll. The frustration is most palpable among supporters of the initiative.

A state bill was quietly passed last weekend that would allow Los Angeles County judges to continue receiving about $46,000 in benefits that were ruled unconstitutional by an appellate court last year. The bill, passed Saturday by both houses, lets stand any benefits provided to judges by counties as of July 1, 2008. It provides a legislative fix to the court ruling, which said the county-funded perks violated a constitutional provision requiring judges' pay to be determined by the Legislature.

In response to "Deals Won Jail Informant Freedom to Attack Again," Part A, Dec. 11: The article by Ted Rohrlich failed to recognize a fundamental principle of criminal sentencing practice in California courts. Prosecutors have a role to play in the sentencing process. We are obligated to seek proper sentences in criminal cases and, in discharging that responsibility, deputy district attorneys routinely urge judges to impose appropriate sentences based upon relevant considerations.

Re "Romney's media handicap," Opinion, March 15 Jonah Goldberg wants "the media" to be nicer to Mitt Romney, and yet he calls 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry "a pompous human toothache. " Surely this is the pot calling the kettle black. Romney is properly on the hot seat for his selective memory and his evasive semi-apologies. You might not remember the name of the kid who sat behind you in calculus, or the name of the teacher, but you really ought to remember the kid who you held down while cutting his hair.

The discovery of electronic devices that could have enabled security officers to hear conversations in private judicial chambers set off a flurry of concern and controversy Friday at the state Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. The devices were installed as part of an elaborate security system in the new offices of the high court and the appellate court that serves the San Francisco region.

The California Supreme Court has let stand a lower court ruling that would allow people implanted with certain heart valves made by Shiley Inc. to sue the Irvine company for fraud even if their own heart mechanisms have not malfunctioned. The justices declined to review a state appellate court's decision made in early February giving Judy Khan, 39, of Roanoke, Va., permission to seek damages for emotional distress in connection with a Shiley valve she had implanted in 1983.