Targeted Judges

Re “George and Chin Are Unfairly Targeted,” Commentary, Oct. 21: Stephen R. Barnett tells only part of the story. In 1987, the California Legislature, controlled by Democrats, passed the parental consent law; it was signed by a Republican governor. In 1996, the California Supreme Court found the law constitutional both under the U.S. and California constitutions. Shortly after the decision was handed down, Ronald M. George was elevated to chief justice and two new justices, Ming W. Chin and Janice R. Brown, were appointed. George had been a dissenter in the 1996 decision and he immediately orchestrated an unusual rehearing of the case. The Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision, the chief justice writing the opinion and Justice Chin providing the margin of victory.

Given the abrupt turnaround occasioned by the change in Supreme Court personnel, voters might infer that the present court believes that the meaning of the California Constitution is determined by the composition of the court and can be changed merely by its whim. If this is the standard of jurisprudence employed by the court, then the people are perfectly legitimate in seeking to change the personnel of the court.

EDWARD J. ERLER

Professor of Political Science

Cal State San Bernardino