The courts vs. Prop. 8
Re “The courts and Prop. 8,” editorial, Nov. 20
The editorial regarding Prop. 8 cautions, “but the legal system is designed to guard against the tyranny of the majority.”
What?
Any tyranny rests in our convoluted legal system. If the will of the people means nothing, revolution cannot be far behind. The Times’ editorialists have gone over the cliff this time around.
Barry Cook
La Quinta
::
I always suspected that you only tolerated the democratic process as long as it furthered your causes. I never thought you would admit it.
I was wrong.
Today you called the outcome of a democratic process you don’t like the tyranny of the majority. What would you have called it if Proposition 8 had been defeated? A benevolent dictatorship?
But cheer up: There are always the courts, right?
Wim Scholten
Culver City
::
Your writing with regard to the lack of knowledge of the role of the courts in the U.S. is saddening, but only because of the accuracy of your assessment.
Discussions of the court’s involvement in Proposition 8 invariably focus on the comments about the “will of the people” and “activist judges” you refer to.
Perhaps it would benefit everyone if voters were required to pass a basic civics lesson before they were allowed to decide on initiatives that tell others how to live. Even this fourth branch of government, created by 24 states via the initiative process, cannot be immune from judicial review.
Richard Caton
San Diego
::
Re “Court is feeling the heat on Prop. 8,” Nov. 19
It is alarming that certain supporters of Proposition 8 are threatening to seek the recall of justices of the California Supreme Court who vote to invalidate Proposition 8.
The effectiveness of the administration of justice depends in large measure on public confidence. In order to ensure the dignity of our judicial system and to prevent interference with pending litigation, we need an independent judiciary that is dedicated to decision-making based solely on the facts as presented and the law as written, regardless of the popularity of those decisions or the politics of the parties involved.
Ad hominem attacks against judges or threats to remove them based on how they decide a particular case or how they interpret the Constitution have no place in our democracy and are contrary to the rule of law.
Nancy Knupfer
Beverly Hills
The writer is president of the Beverly Hills Bar Assn.