Politicization of Supreme Court

This letter is in reply to that of Peter M. Williams, the attorney from Pomona who glibly categorizes those opposed to the Rose Bird-led court as poorly informed conservatives and anti-intellectual. Such arrogant pronouncements cannot mask or put aside legitimate complaints of those opposed to the blatant obstructionist behavior of this Supreme Court regarding imposition of the death penalty.

Further, Williams would obfuscate the real issues by castigating, in his words, inept trial judges, prosecuting attorneys and the amateurish lawmakers in Sacramento as the root cause of the court’s decisions on death penalty sentences.

When the old death penalty law was declared unconstitutional in 1972, it was replaced by voter mandated, straightforward legislation, the constitutionality of which is not the focus of the Bird Court decisions. The real issue is a court philosophy that is anti-death penalty and whose decisions are supported by peripheral technicalities that are cited in virtually every case reviewed, as being vital to the public welfare and the constitutional rights of the public at large.

Williams insists there has never been a major scandal associated with the Supreme Court. Not so. You’re looking at one, sir, but your self-proclaimed superior intellect prevents you from seeing it. This court is overwhelmingly opposed to the death penalty, but has yet to cite the law itself as unconstitutional, and therefore relies on the use of technical points of law that are morally repugnant to the public whose constitutional rights they profess to protect. You are indeed looking at a scandal, Mr. Williams, and your sophistry concerning these issues reinforces the low esteem your profession has attained in the eyes of the public you profess to serve.

EDWIN J. NELLIS JR.

Canoga Park