Time to Put the Supreme Court’s Decision to Rest

Re “Court’s Unforgettable Year,” editorial, July 1:

I find the editorial somewhat less than honest. When the Florida Supreme Court (seven justices, all Democratic appointees) voted to mandate recounts in three heavily Democratic districts (ignoring the possibility that similar errors in vote counts may have existed elsewhere, particularly in Republican strongholds), it was hailed by the Al Gore camp as an impartial judicial body. When the U.S. Supreme Court voted to overturn that decision by a split vote (based on the fact that both parties’ interests were not being equally protected), the justices were assailed by the Gore camp as being politically biased (even though two of the Florida Supreme Court judges subsequently agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court decision). When, oh when, will this issue be allowed to rest?

I also found Michael Kinsley’s commentary in the same issue (“What Happened to Advice and Consent?”) somewhat disturbing. Historically, the appointment of U.S. Supreme Court justices has been based on their judicial competence and not on their ideological beliefs. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, Kinsley apparently feels that ideology should take precedence over competence.

Mel Posin

Irvine

Sen. Jon Kyl chooses a poor example of judicial purity in his fellow Arizonan, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (“Throw Out Ideology as Any Judicial Test,” Commentary, July 1). O’Connor may have been widely respected, but that was before she joined in the inexcusable decision that had the effect of appointing George W. Bush as our president.

Justice John Paul Stevens said that the loser in Bush vs. Gore was “the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.” Another loser was O’Connor’s reputation.

Cynthia Hart

Culver City

Kyl quotes C. Boyden Gray: “People will simply view the judiciary as another political institution.” Didn’t the William Rehnquist Gang of Five settle that in 2000?

Gene Touchet

Cathedral City