Inaction is pernicious form of judicial activism Re: “Maryland appeals court wimps out,” Local editorial, May 26
In a political climate where words are constantly twisted and redefined to support partisan interests, some errantly assume “judicial activism” occurs only when the court actively creates a new law. However, the passive creation of a law by actively ignoring an existing law’s intent produces equally egregious results.
These Maryland appellate judges have actively chosen to disregard laws appropriately established by the people’s elected representatives. The result of their inaction in this case is the de facto creation of a new law that the court had absolutely no authority to institute.
The Examiner properly finds this a gross failure to properly protect a citizen seeking a rightful safeguard under Maryland law. Yet the appellate court’s decision must not be confused with inaction. It is judicial activism in one of its most deliberate forms.
Any judiciary that departs from established law to take away the protections or freedoms guaranteed to the people is an activist and unconstitutional court.
James Christophersen
Fairfax Station
Targeted infrastructure investment will create jobs
Re: “If at first government fails, then spend, spend again,” May 19
When Diana Furchtgott-Roth refers to the $800 billion for “shovel-ready jobs,” she misleadingly implies that all of that funding contained in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act went to infrastructure-related projects. In fact, ARRA contained only about $64.1 billion for infrastructure.Compare that with the $2.2 trillion that the American Society of Civil Engineers says is needed just to bring our infrastructure up to a state of good repair.
Smart, targeted investments in infrastructure can help our economy continue to grow, create jobs and maintain America’s global economic competitiveness. That is why we support the creation of the National Infrastructure Bank that Furchtgott-Roth criticizes. The NIB can bring together infrastructure experts and remove politics from the project selection process, while at the same time paying for itself.
Sean P. O’Shea
Vice president and counsel,
Building America’s Future
Underground alignment not major cost factor
Re: “Authority looking to feds to fund Dulles Metro,” May 18
The Examiner wrongly reported that the approved underground alignment for the Metro station at Washington Dulles International Airport is the major factor in Dulles Rail Phase 2 costs. In fact, the on-airport underground station is only one component — and not the primary one. The cost differential between the aerial and underground stations is less than 10 percent of total Phase 2 project costs — and less than 5 percent of total Dulles Metrorail costs.
In contrast, the original plan for the underground station approved by the commonwealth of Virginia, Fairfax County, Loudoun County and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority in 2007 would have represented about 15 percent of total Phase 2 costs. The modified plan we approved on April 6 reduced the cost of the underground station by about half because we found many smart ways to save money, and we are confident that our engineers can find further cost reductions that will enable us to build the best possible system for the least cost.
Our board believes the underground station will best serve the needs of air travelers, employees and others, and be a fitting gateway to our region and our nation as well as a powerful engine for future economic growth. Anything less would be short-sighted.
Charles D. Snelling
Chairman of the Board of Directors,
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
