41 CHRONICLESnYonkers pays for a federal judge’snvision of a free society: a Jimmy Carternappointee, Federal District CourtnJudge Leonard B. Sand, has fined thencity of Yonkers for resisting a federalndesegregation scheme. Eight years afternthe NAACP and the US JusticenDepartment filed suit against Yonkersnfor hesitating to accept a 1000-unitnlow- and middle-income housing project,nthe “mild-mannered” Judge Sandnalso levied personal fines upon the fourncity legislators who voted against thenplan.nMost Yonkers residents, many ofnwhom escaped similar state-supportednhousing developments elsewhere innNew York, have been loud in theirnpraise of the councilmen. As JulianTroy, 83, expressed it to a New YorknTimes reporter, she “would rather seenthe city go bankrupt” than face thendrugs, crime, and blight that the proposednfederal scheme would bring tonYonkers. Or, as John Liggio, 62, says,n”We worked and saved all our lives sonwe could move out of the Bronx to thisnbeautiful neighborhood, and for what?nSo we won’t be able to sell our house?nIts value has lost $100,000.”n”Where’s this judge coming from?”nasked Walter Small, another Yonkersnresident and a Vietnam vet. “What’snhe trying to do? . . . [M]ake a name fornhimself? You have people who wouldnvolunteer to go to jail [the four cityncouncilmen — Nicholas V. Longo,nEdward J. Fagan Jr., Peter Chema,nHenry Spallone]. They’re doing whatnwe elected them to do-“nJudge Sand, who has never beennelected to anything, finds his workn”satisfying.” “I like to think that I havena reasonable perspective on what anjudge’s role is in our society,” he says.n”I have a sense I am doing my job.”nThe Yonkers case represents morenthan judicial arrogance. The people ofnYonkers elected their City Council innfair and undisputed elections, but innCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSnthe name of democratic equality thenfederal courts are waging war againstnthe democratic process. In this strugglenof upper-class judges against middleandnlower-class citizens, the judiciaryntakes shelter under its own interpretationnof the Fourteenth Amendment,nwhose only purpose was to guaranteenvoting rights to former slaves. For overn50 years the federal courts have perverselynmisread that amendment tongive themselves the power to deny allnthe provisions of the Bill of Rights. Wendon’t need a second ConstitutionalnConvention. What we do need is annamendment that forbids federal courtsnfrom meddling in the affairs of statenand local communities.n/ wouldn’t be a public Hgure fornanything. Think of what comes back tonhaunt you! Take Dan Quayle. TakenPeter Jennings, the Dan Quayle ofn1965. Nothing is new under the sun,nit’s just your old embarrassment withnsomebody else’s name on it. RemembernJennings the night of Quayle’snacceptance speech at the RepublicannConvention? Tut-tutting about thatnbusiness of family influence, andnQuayle’s youth and inexperience?nWell, Jennings is 50 now, but hey,nPeter, let’s think back 23 years or so.nBack to the midst of the Vietnam War,nwhich you as a Canadian had nonobligation to fight, of course. Back tonwhen a good-looking 26-year-oldnnamed Peter Jennings was given a solonanchor slot on ABC, in the network’sneffort to wrest those . . . baby boomernviewers away (sound familiar?) fromnHuntley and Brinkely and WalternCronkite. A change made for thensoundest, newsiest of reasons, andnwhich Jennings as a seasoned newsnveteran undisputably deserved, allnthose nasty comments aboutn”glamourcaster” and “anchorboy”nnotwithstanding.nNor did young Peter’s career innnnbroadcasting, which started at CanadiannBroadcasting Corporation (notncounting that radio show he had whennhe was 10, “Peter’s Program”), havenanything to do with the fact that hisnfather was a vice president at CBC.nYoung Peter, we can be sure, nevernever called home and said Dad, cannyou help me out? Not even at 10! Itnwas pure talent.nWe shouldn’t be hearing any commentsnfrom Jennings about Quayle’snC-average at DePauw. At least Quaylenstayed in college. After only the briefestnof stints at Carleton in Canada, Jenningsngave up on higher educationnaltogether. That LL.D. from RidernCollege (in New Jersey) listed in hisnWho’s Who entry is honorary. Whichnis to say that even by today’s laxneducational standards he did nothing tonearn it.nBut, then, let’s not discount thenschool of life, the school of hardnknocks, to which Jennings undoubtablynreturned after finally requesting reassignmentnfrom anchoring to foreignnreporting (but only after two years atnthe main desk!). No doubt it was innthose ensuing years in the wilds — i.e.,nLondon — that he learned to pronouncen”Nicaragua” so authenticallyn(why not “Frawnce”? Why notn”Scootland”? If he’s going to pronouncenforeign states as the foreignersndo, why can’t he be consistent?). Ah,nPeter. Our Person-of-the-Week moraliser,nour very own teleprompted Canadian,nour rock, our anchor. Take comfortnin knowing we are all victims ofnhistory, especially of our own history.n—Jack RamsaynLeonie Adams, one of the loveliestnpoets of the first half of this century,ndied this summer at the age of 88. Thisn”nature” poet from (of all places)nBrooklyn, was a protege of Louis Untermeyer,nwho championed her earlyn