Justice Finds Strength in Diversity

Here are excerpts from an interview with California Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird, conducted Friday in San Francisco by Times staff writer Dan Morain.

Question: How important is your philosophical position to this court?

Answer: I don’t understand your question.

Q:

You bring a certain perspective to this court. How important is that?

A:

. . . I don’t think ideology makes that much difference. We all come from different backgrounds. . . . I think what we do is perhaps we broaden the viewpoint of the whole court. We also in the long run strengthen the institution when people look at the institution and see a reflection of the entire society. It is one reason why I think it is very important to see an Asian appointed here. That’s one minority within our society who has not had the sort of recognition they should have had.

Q:

You’ve characterized the campaign against you as a right-wing effort. . . .

A:

I have indicated that for the past 8 1/2 years I have been under attack by the right wing. . . . The money and the focus has been from the right wing. I think there is no mistake about that. . . . The facts are that the right wing has been the vehicle for the attack on the court. . . .

Q:

Is it a role of the court, a significant role of the court, to right social wrongs?

A:

We’re not talking about social wrongs. We are talking about individual cases in which an injustice has been done. . . . What we are about is we are protectors of a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. . . .

Q:

But ideology has nothing to do with it? Philosophy has nothing to do with it?

A:

Well, we all come with our own experiences and our own backgrounds. I don’t think in the long run that ideology plays a very great role in it. . . . I vote the way I think the law requires me to vote. . . . I have to do what I believe the oath of office calls me to do day to day. In the long run people will respect that, whether they agree with you or don’t.

Q:

What are your views, personal views, (on capital punishment)?

A:

I think they are irrelevant. . . . I think the personal views of the justice are irrelevant. And that is where you in the press--sometimes not purposely, but because of the nature of your procedures--distort what is really going. . . . If you look historically at what the court did, it upheld the ’77 statute. It did it in almost record time. You have affirmances of death sentences. . . . There would have been an execution but for the appeals into the federal system. . . . They say this court has been soft on crime. In reality this court has been very very tough. You have more people in prison than we’ve ever had in history. . . .

Q:

You have described yourself as a “liberal progressive judge.” What does that mean?

A:

It means somebody who is sensitive to an individual’s rights in terms of society and the power of the state, somebody who cares about a tolerant society, who cares about the rule of law . . . and about a society that is sensitive to its people and the environment in which they live and work.

Q:

Some liberals have said that if your campaign doesn’t catch fire, you should resign. . . .

A:

My own view of it is that you don’t help the system, you don’t do a service to the people, if you let bullies push the head of a government around. These are bully boys. Eddie Meese (U.S. attorney general) is trying it on the U.S. Supreme Court, which is a conservative institution by anybody’s lights. And he is attempting to push them around because they do not vote in a prescribed manner, in a way in which he wants. . . .

They (Meese’s associates) are after a progressive court out here because we will not bend to their bullying. What kind of service do you do the people who elect you if you turn tail and run and hope that somehow that will save everyone else. . . ?

You know what they will do if you turn tail and run? They will beat up everyone else until they get every single seat they want. You can’t allow that to happen. On a personal level, it would be a much more peaceful life. This is not particularly an enjoyable thing. But I don’t do any service to the people who elected me to turn tail and run and send a message to everybody in it that you better start shaking in your boots if they raise their voice to you. . . .

These bully boys are interested in one thing and one thing only: If you don’t vote down the line the way they want, out you go.

Q:

Are the analyses of cases fair game in the analysis of whether you should be reelected?

A:

Anything is fair game--my hairdo, the way I walk, the way I dress, the way I talk. Whether it is the best way to do things is another story.

Q:

What then is the standard?

A:

The standard is: Are you a hard worker? Are you competent? Are you honest? Are you trying your best to do a good job?

. . . All of us stand before the people. And people have a right to vote on us. But there are real dangers if you vote on people based on whether you like the way they vote. Then you fall into the same thing. If Eddie Meese is in power, every little justice who is going to be appointed . . . has to look and sound and talk like Eddie Meese. If you don’t, you get thrown out.

You don’t want people in lock step up here. The beauty of California has been its openness, that you have a variety of people. It is a beautiful thing that a little Hispanic can look up here and see Cruz Reynoso in the highest judicial office in the state. That is a beautiful thing. Why do we have to have Eddie Meeses all over here? He doesn’t have a corner on the truth. . . . They use the head of the system as a symbol, and you have the additional problem that women in positions of authority are still perceived as vulnerable, and I think that is partly why the focus comes so heavily here. . . .