‘Twisted Logic’ on the Justices

Thank you for the articles by Prof. Michael Moore and Michael S. Wald, who hold opposite points of view regarding the 1986 confirmation elections of several California Supreme Court justices. Both professors presented excellent arguments in favor of their own, conflicting, positions int he controversy. However, these arguments must be superseded by the answer to one simple question: What is the purpose of confirmation elections?

It is my belief that the purpose is for the voters to grade a justice’s past performance. Otherwise, would the voters not have been asked to confirm the nomination before the nominee took a seat on the bench?

If a vote in favor of confirmation signifies that the candidate should be retained in office only because he or she has not been guilty of misconduct or functional incompetence, an election would be superfluous; for, surely, such a person would have long since been removed from office by other means available to the authorities. Therefore, justices must be confirmed for retention solely on the basis of their performances in office.

It must be agreed that a large number of decisions are based on personal and conflicting interpretations of the Constitution. Many decisions of the state (and federal) Supreme Court are split. Does a 4-3 (or 5-4) decision mean that the minority was more unduly influenced by popular opinion than by its own personal interpretations and that the majority was not? Is one Supreme Court justice more qualified to interpret the Constitution than another? We should hope not. We should decide which justice’s decision more properly interpreted the law.

The purpose of the confirmation election is not to rubber-stamp a selection made a dozen or more years ago (and, perhaps, on a personal or political basis by the governor), but to state whether or not the justice is doing the job according to the manner we believe it should be done. Nothing more. Nothing less.

HASKELL COLLIER

Whittier