Move to Reject Justice Bird

Once again The Times has chosen to print an article (Editorial Pages, March 17), “Political Lynch Mob Has Rose Bird Out on a Limb,” regarding the movement to unseat Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird. Once again, the article completely misses the issue.

Part of the problem can be attributed to the headline writer rather than to the author of the piece, William Kahrl. It is not a “political lynch mob” that has Chief Justice Bird “out on a limb.” Rather, it is the people of California, a cross section of which presumably responded to the Mervin Field poll cited by Kahrl. They are tired of a Supreme Court that refuses to enforce the law.

Kahrl errs when he states that the campaign to unseat Chief Justice Bird is nothing more than a personal vendetta. Rather, it is the inevitable result of a Supreme Court, led by the chief justice, that has managed to twist and distort many aspects of the law through a series of ill-advised and result-oriented decisions completely lacking in common sense. The system of accountability works.

When she was appointed, Chief Justice Bird was unqualified to hold the position once occupied by the great Chief Justice Roger Traynor. She is not qualified now. That is the real issue in this campaign.

TIMOTHY B. TAYLOR

Los Angeles

The campaign of vilification against Rose Bird is the best argument yet in favor of life tenure for judges. She isn’t the pariah her opponents make her out to be; instead she’s a highly intelligent, hard working chief justice with the courage to adhere to her own view of what the law requires, even against the tide of popular opinion.

While one may disagree with some or all of them, I have always found her written opinions to be scholarly, thoughtful, and well-reasoned. I see no reason, apart from ideological animus, to throw her out of office. Let the politicians politick; let the judges judge.

KELLY J. MULLINS

Los Angeles

In the letters (Feb. 20) on the “Move to Reject Justice Bird,” John Hamilton Scott states that “The California Supreme Court contains one of the finest panels of judges in the country, 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.”

I wonder where Scott has been? Does he work as a defense lawyer or with the American Civil Liberties Union or does he bury his head in the same beach as the editorial staff of The Times?

I have taken the time to examine its decisions and I have a lot to complain about. For starters, in 1977 the people of California voted for capital punishment, yet not one criminal has been duly punished. This disturbs me because the California Supreme Court should not impose its morals, but instead give objective, legal judgments because the court exists to serve justice and the people--not to impose its own personal opinions.

B. LORRAINE STRIEBY

Chatsworth

It is unfortunate that Chief Justice Bird has been forced to hire a public relations firm. It is, however, absolutely necessary that she do so.

Rose Bird is being threatened by a well-organized, well-financed, ultraconservative campaign aimed at attacking the independence of the judiciary.

In 1982-83 a recall effort against the chief justice failed for lack of signatures. In support of that recall effort a group called the “Committee Advocating Legal Limitations” published the following propaganda misquoting and distorting the chief justice’s opinions:

“Dear Concerned Citizen: Today, picture yourself or a loved one as a rape victim in your own home. If the rapist is tried and found guilty, will his conviction be overturned by Chief Justice Rose Bird, who in the Caudillo case ruled that rape does not constitute great bodily harm? Yes, his conviction will surely be overturned by Rose Bird and the rapist will be returned to the streets to rape again.”

The fact of the matter is in People vs. Caudillo, the Supreme Court, as it must, followed the dictates of the Legislature, which specifically excluded rape from being defined as being an injury inflicting “great bodily harm.” The anti-Rose Bird propaganda fails to mention this key point. Likewise, it fails to mention that simultaneously with creating a 15 years to life sentence if a burglar intentionally inflicts “great bodily harm” upon an occupant, the Legislature specifically escalated the penalty for robbery and rape to the same 15 years to life. Further, People vs. Caudillo was decided by a 5-to-2 majority. In her concurrence, Chief Justice Bird lamented the fact that the Legislature had not defined rape as “great bodily harm.”

In People vs. Caudillo, Chief Justice Bird was doing exactly what she has sworn an oath of office to do: Uphold the Constitutions and laws of the United States and California. To in any way imply, much less state, that she would turn rape victims back onto the streets to rape again is a deliberate falsehood.

This kind of libel puts the chief justice in a terrible dilemma. She can either come out and fight it as she has chosen to do, and thereby risk being accused of political campaigning; or she can in the traditional manner of judges, sit back and neither defend herself nor her office. I am relieved that she has chosen the former. The issue at stake transcends Rose Bird.

ROBERT H. SULNICK

Los Angeles