Presidential Choices for Supreme Court

* Both presidential candidates do the court system an injustice and are in danger of destroying it (“More Than Just the Oval Office at Stake,” Oct. 2). If, indeed, a president can just pick another Antonin Scalia or another William Brennan; if, indeed, a justice acts on no more than his reflexive bias; if, indeed, the Supreme Court is no more than the enduring arm of a transient appointing president, who needs it? Why should Mr. Citizen pay any attention to its edicts? Why should he take their opinions as anything other than good reasons for their real reasons?

The Supreme Court must be more than that and, indeed, it generally has been. While justices, like all humans, have their biases, it is only when merit supersedes bias that they deserve the right to be called justices. For the good of the nation, the candidates would do well to pick justices on the basis of judicial temperament and intelligence, rather than seek those with a bias akin to their own.

ARTHUR YUWILER

Woodland Hills

*

At last, your paper has highlighted the single most important reason for every eligible voter to make his or her voice heard in this year’s presidential election: the Supreme Court. Gary Bauer points out, “The court is the most important division between the two candidates. When Gov. [George W.] Bush mentioned Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas, it sent an unmistakable message to grass-roots conservatives he will do the right thing.”

Indeed he will. Poll after poll shows that this race is shaping up to be the closest in 40 years, and every vote is crucial. For those of us who are truly frightened by the prospect of the Supreme Court veering further to the right, it is our obligation to do the right thing ourselves on Nov. 7: Vote for Al Gore.

DAVID WALLY

Los Angeles