Editorial

                By now readers have had their fill of the good and bad of Arizona’s recently enacted immigration law.

Some feel that Arizona officials were right to enact legislation that will require individuals to produce proof of citizenship upon request from police who have a “defined reason” to ask.  Seventy percent of Arizonans agree.  Apparently, Arizonans are tired of waiting for federal officials to take action on the question regarding our nation’s burgeoning illegal immigration problem.  Their inaction is nothing new.

On the other side of the argument, there are those who feel that the law is open to abuse by police and have called for everything from demonstrations to boycotts.  Fears of cries for “papers please” from uniformed toughs strike fear in the minds of many United States citizens – it also strikes fear in the minds of those who are here illegally.

But the Arizona law, right, wrong or needs more work, is not the purpose of today’s editorial.  Today we want to give you a report that the “main street media” buried inside the pages or didn’t share with you at all.

It’s the story of a Pinal County, Arizona, Deputy Sheriff who was shot on April 30, 2010 (the same day the Arizona law was signed by the Governor) when he found backpacks full of marijuana and other suspicious items in the desert - in an area known for smuggling not only drugs, but people as well.  

The uniformed police officer radioed for help and began tracking the five individuals who left the contraband there.  The heavily armed suspects eventually realized they were being followed and one of them, armed with an AK-47, laid in wait for the deputy then ambushed him.  A gun battle ensued where 20 to 30 rounds were fired at the deputy – one found its mark and injured the police officer.  The deputy returned fire with his AR-15.  Over 200 officers responded to the call for help and cordoned off the area.  According to Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babue, “17 individuals were arrested inside the cordoned area - all illegals.”  The deputy was the only one injured and he is now doing well.

But think about this – Pinal County is not located on the border between Mexico and Arizona. It is located within the Grand Canyon state, about 100 miles north of Mexico.  A member of this heavily armed, paramilitary squad from another country engaged in a 10-minute gun battle deep inside our borders – that should be of great concern for all.  But you have to know about it before you can be concerned about it.

This story is not an isolated incident.  If we had strong and fair federal immigration laws and effective enforcement of them, the states wouldn’t have to make their own rules.  It’s easy for “out-of-staters” to offer up opinions on Arizona’s new law but we should be obligated to learn about the problems, issues and frustrations that Arizonans live with before we make our minds up.

After we make an honest effort to do that, then we may want to channel our demonstrations and boycotts in the direction where they belong– Washington, D.C.

            With the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens this summer from the Supreme Court, for the first time in its history, that court will be without a Protestant.

            When Stevens leaves, the court will be composed of two Jewish and six Catholic justices.  So far we haven’t really seen any protests or heard of any political action being planned if President Obama’s appointment is not a Protestant.

            Currently serving as justices with Stevens are Samuel A. Alito Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas, who were all appointed in the last 25 years by Republican presidents.  Also Catholic is President Obama’s first pick to the high court, Sonia Sotomayor.  Justices Steven G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are Jewish.

            Should religion be a factor to be considered in the next Supreme Court nominee? 

            President Obama has repeatedly emphasized that life experiences are valued traits for nominees.  For instance, it was Sotomayor who initiated a conversation about the experiences that a “wise Latina” might bring to the bench.  Would a qualified judicial candidate, who happens to be a Protestant, have a similar claim?

            Some editorial pages opine that discussing the issue will lead to trouble because religion is private and people think it’s wrong to talk about it.  Why?

            Have we become so politically correct that we’ve given away the right to ask legitimate questions that may or may not have an impact on who becomes the next Supreme Court Justice?

            If you’re a nominee to a position on the highest court in the United States, is it offensive to ask about religion and whether or not your personal beliefs will influence your decisions?  We expect the answer to the second half of that question to be no, but it seems to offend many just by asking it.

            Whoever is nominated and approved as the next Supreme Court Justice should be the person best qualified to serve.

            We hope that religion will be a consideration, but certainly not the only one.