Selection of Judges for Supreme Court

* Re “Courts on Political Stage,” editorial, Sept. 24:

The Constitution itself provides sufficient guidance--a “litmus test,” if you will--for the selection of Supreme Court justices. It declares that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and states that all federal and state judicial officers are bound to support it.

Under this standard, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas deserve our utmost respect, because they take the language of the Constitution seriously, and they try to follow it in their decision-making, regardless of their personal beliefs. They should be praised, not condemned, for having the courage, discipline and honesty to point out the obvious: The Constitution does not say anything about abortion. If we think that there should be a constitutional right to abortion, we should adopt an amendment providing for one, as the Constitution requires.

Prospective justices who say they consider the Constitution a “living document” should be deemed disqualified for service under the constitutional standard. Their so-called judicial philosophy is simply a pretext for writing their personal beliefs into law, regardless of what the Constitution says. If they are capable of imagining rights into the Constitution, they are likely to prove just as capable of imagining rights out of it. The Constitution exists to protect us from them.

ROBERT A. PHILIPSON

Attorney, Santa Monica

*

In recent times our Supreme Court has appeared to abdicate its job by turning many cases back to the states for disposition. While many states may have capable jurists, many do not. I applaud your editorial. I’m sure it will compel many to be more aware of how important the coming election is.

We need Supreme Court justices to be those who have the qualities of all the great justices who preceded them. We have evolved into a great democracy in our beautiful country by their wise decisions.

SYLVIA TERRELL

Los Angeles