Appointment of Ronald George

Your July 31 editorial “A Brilliant but Worrisome Choice” is itself worrisome. Calling Gov. Wilson’s nomination of George to the state Supreme Court a “step backward” and stating that “there must be an effort to make sure that the high court reflects the people of California more fully than a panel of seven whites would,” you criticize the governor for basing his selection on merit rather than demographics.

Although it is probably true, as you say, that a majority of California’s population will soon be composed of minorities (Latinos, Asians, blacks and others), that observation begs the question. In making a judicial appointment, a governor looks not to the entire population of the state, but rather to members of the bench and bar--lawyers and judges on lower courts-- who have the necessary experience and appear to share his views. To suggest a governor, whether Republican or Democrat, should prefer race or ethnicity over experience and judicial philosophy in selecting a high-court nominee is nonsense.

President Bush is currently under attack for nominating to the U.S. Supreme Court a black jurist whose qualifications have been questioned by some. There is irony in The Times’ concurrent criticism of Wilson for his nomination to the California Supreme Court of a white candidate acknowledged to be superbly qualified. I strongly agree with your suggestion that there should be more minority judicial appointments and believe this will, in turn, increase the likelihood of appointments of minority candidates to our state’s highest court in the future. However, there is no justification for withholding your applause of George’s nomination at this time.

HUGH GARDNER

Los Angeles