Judging the justices on the Supreme Court

Re “Gonzales’ Fatal Flaw,” editorial, July 8

While I don’t necessarily disagree with your objections to Alberto Gonzales as a Supreme Court justice, your reasoning reminds me of the case of a former chief justice of some repute, Earl Warren, who might also fail your test for his involvement as California’s attorney general during the internment of thousands of Japanese Americans in World War II. Some might argue his subsequent service on the high bench served as an atonement for his earlier “disregard for fundamental notions of due process.” We can only hope.

Jim Reed

Corona

*

The Times is trying to change our lexicon by replacing the dreaded word “liberal” with the more palatable “moderate.” The July 6 story, “It’s Not Politics as Usual With Gov.’s Judicial Picks,” describes California Supreme Court justices as either “conservative” or “moderate,” with Chief Justice Ronald George somewhere in the middle as the swing vote. The opposite of “conservative” is now apparently “moderate.”

Or more blatantly, as if dealing with a bunch of morons, professor Bruce Ackerman continually describes Supreme Court Justice David Souter -- who is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, anti-death penalty and anti-property rights -- as a “moderate conservative” (“Bush and the Stealth Justice,” Commentary, July 7). Are we still to believe the media does not have a liberal (or maybe that should be “moderate”) agenda?

Hirbod Rashidi

Los Angeles