_______________ A FEEL FOR A GOOD STORY BY CAROL LLOYD (03/17/98)
	Precisely what is the point of Carol Lloyd's article decrying sexual harassment at "60 Minutes"? Is she saying those organizations that employ sexual harassers should be barred from televising testimony of a victim of sexual harassment? If so, that is the quickest way to shut any woman up. Obviously, Ms. Lloyd doesn't cotton to exposé's concerning our esteemed president. But I do feel for her. She is just beginning her long journey through the murky waters of denial to the clear, cold light of truth. I wish her the best of luck. She's going to need it. -- Kathleen Reilly
_______________ LABIA ENVY BY LOUISA KAMPS (03/16/98)
	I read Louisa Kamps' article with a mixture of fascination, disbelief and outrage. What kind of crap is "Doctor" Alter peddling? We clamor for our government to give political asylum to women fleeing cultures in which they are subjected to genital mutilation, and yet this man has the nerve to advertise what amounts to the same thing -- and to charge these women money for it? What disturbs me the most about this is the fact that there are women who will buy into this garbage, that they feel so badly about their bodies that they will undergo unnecessary, potentially damaging surgery to fit some ridiculous, nonexistent ideal. Instead of attacking the supplier, though, women and men should remove the demand for such procedures by realizing that, as Kamps wrote, our bodies cover a veritable "snowflakelike spectrum," and that this is as it should be. -- Maureen Conklin
_______________ BUGLIOSI THE BOMB THROWER BY LORI LEIBOVICH (03/17/98)
	Before Vincent Bugliosi goes trashing both the Supreme Court and the eminent constitutional lawyers who prepared the argument for Bill Clinton in Clinton vs. Jones, he might actually want to consider why the court ruled as it did and what constraints Clinton's attorneys had to work with. The fact is that Clinton's lawyers were working in an area of case law where there was almost nothing to support their argument. They made the only argument they could make that any responsible court would even entertain on this issue. What is not surprising is that the court ruled as it did, but that it even granted certiorari in the first place. It is as true today as it was when the ruling was handed down that there is nothing in the text, structure or history of the Constitution that suggests a sitting president enjoys immunity from civil lawsuits concerning events before he was elected. One might think, as the president's lawyers perhaps thought, that subjecting a sitting president to judicial scrutiny while he was in office might damage the delicate relationship between the legislative and judicial branches. However, as the court noted in Youngstown Sheet & Tube (the steel seizure case), no president can escape scrutiny by the judiciary. In short, and as Mr. Bugliosi must acknowledge, the president is just a citizen like any other. He enjoys the same rights and privileges, and no more because of his high office. This is not just democratic wishful thinking. It is a key insight of the republican political theory that animated the drafting of the constitution. Mr. Bugliosi makes much of his balancing of interests argument. But as any lawyer will tell you, a court only engages in a balancing of interests when there are two recognized interests to balance. As there is no presidential interest in avoiding civil lawsuits like the current one while in office, there is nothing to balance. Mr. Bugliosi may prate on about his wisdom, but his argument is wholly bereft of support in any sort of legal authority. Just saying the president ought to be free of distraction won't get you anywhere. The fact remains that the president has not been greatly inconvenienced by the Jones lawsuit. He has given his deposition, which took all of one day. He has to pay his attorneys, but that's never a reason we allow someone to avoid litigation. The only real suffering Mr. Clinton has had to endure is scrutiny by the news media. But nothing in the Constitution says, and indeed much suggests to the contrary, that the president enjoys any right to be free from scrutiny from the media about embarrassing personal details. That argument suggests a clear abrogation of First Amendment text and case law, which even Mr. Bugliosi must recognize as important. The fact is we want our leaders to be free of distraction, and I as much as anyone hope that this whole affair will be resolved soon. But the argument Mr. Bugliosi makes is not only wrong and wholly bereft of legal purchase, it is downright dangerous. Many public officials serve important functions, from Alan Greenspan to any senator to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Do they too enjoy immunity from civil suits while in office? I would hope not. Before Mr. Bugliosi vents his rage on many of the finest attorneys and judges in this country, he might stop to think for a minute. -- Matthew Richards SALON | March 18, 1998