The Court of Public Opinion Weighs Debate on Judiciary

Re “Judges’ Battle Transcends Numbers,” April 17: Republican Party leaders use “activist judges” as a red herring to build support for changing the rules -- in time for Supreme Court confirmations. As always, if Congress doesn’t agree with judges’ interpretation of the law, then Congress makes law that clarifies its intent. It’s as simple as that -- checks and balances are the basis of our government: Congress makes law, judges interpret law, and the president enforces law.

The real question is who would speak up if the president were to nominate Supreme Court justices who do not share the conservative principles of the 60 million Americans who elected him?

Darren Hardy

Santa Barbara

*

Re “The Not So Dirty Dozen,” Commentary, April 18: With “social liberals” like Jonathan Turley, who needs social conservatives? His advice to the Democrats to support nine of the 12 ultraconservative nominees for the appellate courts is truly misguided. I am amazed at how he has found these judicial reactionaries, including Janice Rogers Brown, whose judicial conduct and opinions are well to the right of Genghis Khan, to be essentially fair-minded and well suited for appointment to the appellate courts.

Beyond this absurd claim, these nominees actually share one thing in common: They are all right-wing activist ideologues and represent a real threat to the constitutional ideal of a fair and unpoliticized judiciary.

Andrew Spathis

Los Angeles

*

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reminds us that we need to be extremely careful in tampering with the Senate rules on debate because the majority party can soon become the minority one. Limiting debate on judicial appointments by eliminating the filibuster stifles the public’s voice and allows “dirty tricks” to become the standard for discourse.

Del Clark

Los Alamitos