Court Deliberations

Christopher Cameron’s view (Column Left, Oct. 12) that Justice Clarence Thomas should not participate in the Supreme Court’s review of a sexual harassment case because he was the subject of some wild and totally unsubstantiated accusations of such harassment during his confirmation represents curious--but typical liberal--logic. By only a small extension of his reasoning, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg should be expected to excuse themselves from any consideration of abortion cases because they have an obvious personal perspective on that issue.

A review of Justice Thomas’ judicial record amply demonstrates a capability to deal with constitutional issues based on a rather strict interpretation of what is actually written in that document, not what he’d like to say based on his feelings for the particular situation. The liberals’ belief in situational ethics leaves them ill-equipped to understand that there are those who can and do use more solid and lasting standards to judge right and wrong.

RICHARD A. CHASE

Riverside

* Justice Thomas continues to demonstrate that he has reached his level of incompetence. Thank you, ex-President Bush.

JOE CHAVEZ

Hacienda Heights

* Although I was opposed to the appointment of Ginsburg, I am offended by your question, “Who will Ginsburg most often vote with?” (Opinion, Oct. 3), as it suggests that she lacks the strength and integrity to be fair and objective. Why must she vote with anyone other than her conscience?

RICHARD LEE HARTMAN

South Pasadena