Sir, - It is unfortunate, but true, that an inverse relationship often exists between the importance of an issue and the quality of discussion surrounding it.
Fintan O'Toole (January 15th) suggestes it is ironic that President Clinton opposed racial segregation while two men whose official positions involve them in the trial of the president may not have opposed that segregation. Those two are Senator Thurmond of South Carolina, and Chief Justice Rehnquist. Mr O'Toole notes that half-acentury ago Senator Thurmond defended segregation, in both local and national politics. Mr O'Toole also noted that in the mid-1950s, the then Mr Rehnquist suggested that federal judges should not be involved with ending segregation. In addition, Mr O'Toole repeated allegations that in the mid-1960s, Mr Rehnquist participated in electoral tactics designed to prevent minorities from voting.
From those observations, Mr O'Toole would apparently have us conclude that the charges against President Clinton are to be minimised. I give him full marks for presenting his non sequitur as a nice twist on the more familiar proposition that we are to judge a man by his enemies. He neatly avoids the trap of suggesting that President Clinton is to be known by his accusers, for neither Senator Thurmond nor Chief Justice Rehnquist has accused the president. Nevertheless, even assuming that Mr O'Toole has his history correct, the simple fact is that the events of the mid-century have no bearing on the charges against President Clinton.
Likewise irrelevant are the assertions made by Ms Jeannette Huber (January 16th) and many others that it is improper for the Senate to act against the apparent desire of 60 per cent of Americans to end the impeachment proceedings. Put aside questions about the wording of the questions that produced that statistic; put aside doubts about whether those who answer the questions are even partially aware of the evidence in support of the charges against the president. Focus only on the assertion that because a majority of the entire American population wants something, the majority should get its desire. Two points should be sufficient to demonstrate the fallacy of that assertion.
First, the senators do not represent the entire American population. Each Senator represents a single state. Thus, to the extent that majority rule is to apply, the only polling data that matters is the data from each state. To the best of my knowledge, no one has published that data.
Second, if the assertion is correct, then what are we to make of racial segregation ? Are we to condemn the Supreme Court of the United States for declaring segregated schools unconstitutional even in the face of a poll showing that a majority of Americans favored segregated schools? Indeed, why are we to condemn Senator Thurmond for defending segregation when it is true beyond any doubt that in 1948 a majority of his constituents in South Carolina favored it?
In your own pages we have also recently seen discussion of questions about the relationship between "private" conduct and public office. Those issues and others merit considered discussion; we should not allow ourselves to be distracted by careless rhetoric. - Yours, etc., Walter F. Pratt, Jnr, Professor of Law,
Notre Dame Law School, Oughterard Co Galway.