Strong Opinions on Bush and the Courts

I can’t speak for all judges as Michael Kinsley presumes to do (“Who Are the Activists Now?” Commentary, Nov. 14) when he writes, “Every judge sincerely believes that he or she is interpreting the law properly.” Later he writes, “Judges make decisions and impose their will all the time.” Maybe it is I who does not understand what Kinsley means. And Kinsley does not understand what President Bush means when he says his kind of judge “knows the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law.”

Alas, we need Bill Clinton to explain to us again what he means by “it depends on what ‘is’ is.” Therein lies Kinsley’s problem. He is so intent on parsing Bush’s every word that he misses the common sense of what the president is saying. But Kinsley makes clear that activist-generated rules and laws on affirmative action programs are “good” even though they never were permitted in the original legislation. It is no wonder that he does not understand the meaning of Bush’s plain language.

Ernest Norsworthy

Newport Beach

*

Re “Justices Who Won’t ‘Run With the Wolves,’ ” Commentary, Nov. 15: What is the point of Geoffrey R. Stone’s piece? He offers no solution or even an idea of any action to keep this president from appointing justices to the U.S. Supreme Court who will decide cases exactly the same way as Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, and nothing about how to keep the Senate from confirming Bush appointees.

This commentary, together with all the letters worrying about global warming and other horrors that Republicans seemingly don’t care about, makes me think the people writing don’t know who won the election.

Dawn Sharp

Claremont