Move to Reject Justice Bird

It is a sad and sorry day for California and for its people when the governor urges a special interest group to “work for the defeat of Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and three other justices” because of the particular economic interests of the group. I refer to your article (Feb. 8), “Governor Tells Businessmen to Help Oust Bird.”

To make the independence of members of the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, dependent upon how judges conform to the opinions--or interests--of particular groups in society, or indeed of the majority, or of the chief executive, is to strip the judiciary of its most precious ingredient, the feeling of its members that they must interpret and adjudicate the law as each one of them sees it, free of worry about what an electorate may wish.

When judges begin thinking in terms of how their decisions will affect the interests--and the votes--of this group or that, no matter what it may be, one of the fundamental underpinnings of our democracy, a completely independent judiciary, will be eroded and will soon crumble. But this is precisely what Gov. George Deukmejian is suggesting that members of the Supreme Court should do if they wish to remain on the court.

The California Supreme Court long has been, and still is, one of the foremost appellate tribunals in the country. Few, if any, rank above it in the opinion of the nation’s judiciary, legal scholars and lawyers.

To ask that one or more of the justices of the Supreme Court be removed by vote of the people because of the alleged economic interests of a particular group or because the governor is anxious to “be able to make a few more” appointments to that court traduces the long American--and Californian--tradition of an independent judiciary.

As the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice, William O. Douglas, wrote in his autobiography, “The Court Years,” “An independent judiciary has been the great rock in stormy seas . . .” We must not threaten that independence.

GEORGE SLAFF

Beverly Hills

Your editorial (Feb. 11), “Striking Below the Belt,” revealed once again your paranoia regarding anything negative that is said about Rose Bird--it’s as though someone steps on your toe and you rise right out of your chair screaming.

Gov. Deukmejian, who is proving to be one of California’s most able governors, is perfectly within his right as an individual and as governor to express his feeling about anyone or anything. There was absolutely nothing improper or out of line in the text of his comments about Rose Bird.

As for Rose Bird, she has proven to be just about the worst of Jerry Brown’s many sub-par appointments. She was totally unqualified for the job by experience--little trial and no judicial record--and the court turmoil during her first year or two on the job sounded like a daytime soap opera. California’s Supreme Court, once recognized as one of the best, became a laughing stock.

You do yourselves an injustice with your blind defense of Bird. She really is a turkey.

BRADFORD HALL

San Francisco

The letters in The Times (Feb. 8) regarding Chief Justice Bird are typical of the recent attacks upon the courts of California and upon the Supreme Court in particular--they are based either on misinformation, or upon no information at all. Thus, most of the letters give absolutely no reason why the decisions made by the Chief Justice were incorrect (the only justifiable reason for removing a judge). Arthur L. Rubin lists four reasons, and is wrong as to each of them.

Rubin drags up the old charge that the filing of a decision was delayed for political purposes. At a hearing it was determined that the reason for the delay was the failure of Justice William P. Clark to promptly file a dissent. Rubin claims that rulings were made on state law grounds to avoid federal review. But every judge in California is required to rule on state law grounds if possible, and to reach federal law only in the absence of state authority. Rubin says that rulings are made on narrow grounds. This is a conservative rule of jurisprudence that forbids courts from using a single case to create broad new rules of law. Finally, Rubin claims that removing lower court opinions from publication prevents organized determination of the law. Not only is this not true, but the Chief Justice is one of the more vocal opponents of the practice, often dissenting from such orders even in cases where she might disagree with the result.

The California Supreme Court contains one of the finest panels of judges in the county, both liberals and conservatives. Anyone who takes the time to actually examine its decisions will find little to complain about. These biased and unfounded attacks must stop.

JOHN HAMILTON SCOTT

Van Nuys

With regard to the article on the California Supreme Court by Prof. Gerald Uelmen (Editorial Pages, Jan. 30), I should like to state that I approve and agree (with one large exception) with his analysis about the politicizing of the court and the rigorous election Chief Justice Bird faces.

Likening it to a Greek tragedy was appropriate. Without going into the merits or demerits of Chief Justice Bird, I take issue with Uelmen’s last sentence, i.e., “If judicial independence is worth preserving, it is time to seriously consider giving the same lifetime appointments to our state judges that we provide for federal judges.”

There is absolutely nothing wrong with electing our state judges. As the term for a California Supreme Court justice is 12 years, it hardly can be said this results in restraint on their ability to act independently. They also do not undergo the careful scrutiny federal Supreme Court judges do. Therefore, a president can usually appoint someone reflecting the president’s own judicial (and political) philosophy and be reasonably sure during that justice’s tenure in the court that he/she will vote the way the president would desire. There have been some exceptions, of course (Earl Warren and President Eisenhower, for one).

State judges are not really subjected to the scrupulous confirmation hearings that federal judges are and, as a result, not a few judges can (and do) get on the bench who might not be competent. Elections are a way of keeping them responsible to the public.

GUY S. MILLER

Woodland Hills