Letters

The Supreme Court Battle

Our stories on Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation and the coming fight over the court's next Justice prompted readers to share their ideal choices for O'Connor's successor. Some hoped for a moderate jurist acceptable to most Americans, while others decried the politicization of judicial appointments

Will President George W. Bush's choice of a Supreme Court Justice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor [July 11] serve to unify the country, or will it lead to a confrontational crisis? America's Founding Fathers gave Supreme Court Justices lifetime appointments, not foreseeing the deeply acrimonious partisanship that would exist in today's politics. The majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade, the court decision that legalized abortion, and we don't need Bush's circumventing the public's will through his selection of a Supreme Court Justice.

RON LOWE

Nevada City, Calif.

The job of a judge is not to express a personal opinion but to read and apply the laws enacted by our elected representatives. A Justice is not authorized to change or ignore the law. How can we fairly enforce our laws if judges do not faithfully comply with them in every detail, just as all citizens must?

JON MOSELEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

LEGAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL

Ashburn, Va.

President Bush's choice of a successor to Justice O'Connor can go a long way toward fostering oneness in this country and bolstering the President's flagging popularity. Democrats and Republicans alike, except for extremists on both sides, admired her flexibility in the court's contentious decisions. Justice O'Connor eschewed rigidity in favor of nuance in each controversial case, and our country has been the better for it.

GLORIA KOTTICK

Iowa City, Iowa

TIME's account of O'Connor's thoughtfulness toward her staff speaks volumes about the character of that remarkable woman. The world would be a far better place if we emulated her sensitivity to people whose lives are part of our daily sphere of influence.

ROBERT R. MITTOO

Calgary, Alta.

In your color-coded graphic showing the Supreme Court Justices' "ideological palette," TiME did not identify any of them as "staunch liberal," while labeling three as "staunch conservative." A more helpful illustration would have been a list of a few recent rulings side by side with the names of the Justices who voted with the majority. Attaching a label to a Justice is too simplistic, especially when there is no common agreement on what the label means. The media should concentrate on the character and qualifications of a potential nominee rather than his or her political leanings.

JACK LEE

Yorktown Heights, N.Y.

This may be a good time to do away with lifetime appointments for judges, including those at the federal level. Judges should be required to retire after they turn 70. We could extend that rule to all those employed by the Federal Government--including Congress and the President. We have too many old folks sending young folks to war.

STANLEY A. GREEN

Stockton, Calif.

Useless Music?

Are we so naive as to believe that the Live 8 concerts [July 11] will provide relief for poverty-stricken Africans? How can we help the continent of Africa with some concerts in the park? I have never witnessed a more pretentious and self-absorbed gathering of celebrities. And all the audience had on its mind was not hope for Africa but hope for an encore. The plight of Africa is not some startling revelation. No one should be unaware of the devastation there. Live 8 will assuage the world's guilt for a while. Then sentiment will grow for a repeat event in 2025. Let's all hope we get a great summer's day for that concert too.

DANIEL KOWBELL

Toronto

Sharing Journalists' Notes

I strongly disagree with the decision made by Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s editor-in-chief, to comply with a federal grand jury's subpoena and surrender the notes and files of White House correspondent Matthew Cooper [July 11]. Pearlstine said the company had an obligation to follow the law. But throughout our country's history, it has been those who have stood up to the misuse of laws who have brought about the social changes needed to protect our constitutional rights. The American press has been justifiably criticized for being too easy on the Bush Administration and not practicing real investigative journalism. I fear that Pearlstine's decision reinforces those views and further weakens the power of the press.

PATRICIA LAKE

Portland, Ore.

TIME did the right thing. As a lawyer and a Democrat, I wish the Supreme Court had heard TIME's appeal and protected the confidentiality of its reporter's sources. Still, I applaud Pearlstine for making the principled decision to follow the rule of law, much as he believes the law should be different. We don't have to like laws, orders or rulings. But unless we are anarchists, we should follow them.

RICH MCLEOD

Kansas City, Mo.

TIME's decision to turn over Cooper's reporting notes is akin to negotiating with terrorists. It only emboldens enemies of the First Amendment. The issue is not about TIME magazine. It is about the public trust that you hold. Or held.

VALARIE S. ZEECK

Tacoma, Wash.

TIME did the right thing. Perhaps in choosing to reveal sources, you will help restore faith in the media.

MARIA LONG

Sonora, Calif.

As a college journalism student, I was disappointed by TIME's decision to turn over Cooper's notes--a decision that sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of us. Our profession is under fire enough as it is. We don't need media outlets to act more like corporations answering to shareholders than like journalists answering to readers.

PATRICIA MAZZEI

Coral Gables, Fla.