A bunch of left-wing ranting about Bush
v. Gore
Professor Chemerinsky was my constitutional law professor at USC, and
I like and respect him. However I do not
believe he has ever been known to take either a centrist or right-of-center view on any
subject.
There is nothing wrong with that, but there is a lot wrong when the
Bar Journal gives him a valuable forum (January Opinion) to spout his views on a subject
of only tangential interest to most California attorneys, and which has had ample airing
in other, more generalist, forums.
When the Bar Journal simply becomes a forum for left-wing political
rants, as in the Chemerinsky article, don’t be surprised when those of us with more
moderate views take umbrage to our bar dues being used for such a purpose.
Roger J. Buffington
Irvine
 No member dues are used to
support the California Bar Journal.
Court’s wounds are Chemerinsky-inflicted
Erwin Chemerinsky’s article condemning Bush v. Gore is nothing
more than a highly partisan brief for Gore written by a liberal democratic professor. In
fact, all nine members of the court said the Florida Supreme Court was probably wrong, but
two said they had the right to be wrong. Seven said the Florida court’s ruling was
unconstitutional. Of those seven, two thought there was time to correct the errors, five
did not.
The wounds to the U.S. Supreme Court are not self-inflicted. They are
inflicted by politically motivated people like Chemerinsky. It is tragic, not to say
unforgivable, for a law professor to write such a biased piece with the calculated purpose
of damaging the court’s reputation and casting doubt on the outcome of the election.
Leonard Lamensdorf
Santa Barbara
More liberal palaver . . .
Mr. Chemerinsky completely overlooks the fact that the trial court
had ruled in favor of Mr. Bush based on existing law (twice), and the Florida Supreme
Court had to create new law to overturn the trial court decision. The Florida Supreme
Court went out of its way to avoid Florida statutory law and render what was clearly a
political opinion designed to insure chaos in the election process. The trial court was
correct and so was the U.S. Supreme Court in rendering a decision that restored some
certainty to the electoral process.
Alan Dale Daniel
Bakersfield
. . . And arrogant, besides
If you are interested in knowing why so many members of the State Bar
are so often upset, re-read the article by Chemerinsky. The least you could do when you
publish clearly controversial articles is to have, in the same issue, the opinions
reflecting the views of both sides of the controversy. In that way, you could claim to be
neutral and begin shedding an image that many of us, rightly or wrongly, consider far left
and ultra-liberal.
Chemerinsky’s viewpoints in this article are, in my view and, I
suspect, in the view of the Supreme Court of the United States, arrogant and wrong-headed.
I would defend his right to his viewpoints, but would prefer to see them challenged in the
same issue of the “Official Publication of the State Bar,” supposedly
reresenting all of us. Martha Barnett’s article was sensible. Hers is the kind of
comment that is appropriate in an organ supposed to represent the State Bar in toto.
Jules Darras
Temecula
The Chemerinsky and Barnett
articles appeared on the same Opinion page.
A reckless diatribe
Erwin Chemerinsky’s attack on the motives and integrity of
members of the U.S. Supreme Court, with statements such as “five conservative
Republican Supreme Court justices handed the election to the Republican candidate,”
is unwarranted and reckless, particularly coming from a member of the bar and a professor
of law.
In contrast to his charge of judicial impropriety are the facts,
among several others, that (1) Florida Chief Justice Wells concluded that his court’s
ruling had no foundation in Florida law and would not withstand scrutiny under the U.S.
Constitution; (2) seven U.S. Supreme Court justices determined that the Florida Supreme
Court’s ruling failed to meet the Constitution’s minimum requirements for equal
protection; and (3) the ruling to vacate the Florida Supreme Court’s first related
ruling was unanimous. Contrary to Professor Chemerinsky’s charge, the U.S. Supreme
Court, in the face of certain media and public criticism, performed its duty in a
judicious and honorable manner.
Martha Barnett’s article, “Let the courts do their job,”
was right on point and should have had the top billing.
Robert Manning
Newport Beach
A forgettable opinion
Professor Chemerinsky opines that “few decisions have done more
to tarnish the court’s image than Bush v. Gore.” I don’t think so.
Public opinion polls already reflect a growing confidence in the
decisions in Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court will survive with its image untarnished long
after Professors Chemerinsky and Dershowitz have been forgotten.
Matt Diederich
Santa Clarita |
