Supreme Court Rules on Civil Rights

* Re “Supreme Court Scales Back Part of ’64 Civil Rights Act,” April 25: The Supreme Court continues to make aggressive, dictatorial decisions with almost no public outcry. Its latest travesty in gutting a 35-year-old precedent in civil rights law ranks up there with the Bush election debacle of last year. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has an agenda and (aided by his henchmen, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas) will stop at nothing to pursue it. In giving the constitutional power to the Supreme Court as a final resolver of disputes, surely our founding fathers hoped for persons of common decency and impartiality. Our current court’s makeup is sadly lacking in these vitally important qualities.

God knows whom the man they pushed into office would nominate for a potential vacancy. Thank you, Justice John Paul Stevens (appointed by Republican Gerald Ford), for your eloquent dissent, calling this black mark what it is: simply bad law.

MARK J. DINIAKOS

Thousand Oaks

*

* It’s that time of year again when the U.S. Supreme Court is finishing its business before the summer recess and is beginning to hand down some of the most controversial opinions of the term. True to form, The Times ominously and repeatedly refers to any opinion that is even vaguely conservative as being the handiwork of the court’s presumably monolithic “conservative majority.” In fact, the court--like the country--is rather evenly divided, with only three (of nine) consistently “conservative” votes, four relatively “liberal” votes and two swing votes (Justices Sandra Day O’Connor’s and Anthony M. Kennedy’s). I’m still waiting for the day when The Times refers to the court’s “liberal majority” in those cases in which the two middle-of-the-roaders swing left.

ANTHONY J. ONCIDI

Los Angeles

*

* I can see it now: In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court trims back major portions of the 1938 Fair Labor Practices Act. In consequence, only deliberate attempts by businesses to force children to work are outlawed; voluntary contracts between families and businesses regarding the employment of their children are upheld. Conservative spokesmen hail the decision, saying that it would accomplish three important goals: make American businesses more competitive; allow large, poor families an extra source of income; and reduce the amount of money spent on welfare. The Supreme Court is currently rumored to be reevaluating female suffrage and slavery.

JIM STEIN

Redondo Beach