Court of public opinion argues a Supreme case

Re “Judicious restraint,” editorial, Sept. 5

As chief justice, William Rehnquist did sometimes adhere to rules from prior cases of which he may have personally disapproved, such as Miranda vs. Arizona. But under his leadership, the Supreme Court overruled numerous precedents. And it is grossly misleading to invoke the 1992 case Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, which upheld what it called the “essential” rule of Roe vs. Wade. It is technically accurate that Rehnquist “presided” over that decision, but the chief justice presides over every case in which he participates.

Far more significant is that he dissented from the court’s decision not to overrule Roe. Rehnquist was simply not being “magnanimous,” as your editorial erroneously suggested.

DAVID B. CRUZ

USC Law Professor

West Hollywood

*

Give us a break. The Times is interested in judicial stability only if it advances or protects the liberal agenda. When the court tears down long-established precedent that would preserve a more conservative viewpoint, The Times celebrates the emanations and penumbras that the liberal wing of the court is able to discover in support of advancing radical individual rights, anarchy and control of anything economic and everything politically correct.

KIP DELLINGER

Los Angeles

*

Re “A model of judicial restraint, not activism,” Opinion, Sept. 6

Edward Whelan conveniently neglects to mention the Supreme Court’s most abusive use of activism: the 2000 decision that made George W. Bush president. If the conservative justices were impartial and not activist Republicans, they would have ruled in favor of states’ rights and declined to get involved. Our current movement in the courts and Congress toward solidifying a capitalist oligarchy will continue and escalate given the political nature of President Bush’s court appointees.

YOLANDE MACIAS MCKAY

Glendora

*

In less than 48 hours after Rehnquist’s death, President Bush had already nominated John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice of the Supreme Court, but it took days for the government to move into action to provide the people of New Orleans with basic necessities. It is very clear where Bush’s priorities are.

CHERILYN SMITH

West Hollywood