Senate Judiciary Committee Votes No on Judge Bork

In his article, (“It’s Missing the Point to See Bird’s Ghost in Bork Fight,” Op-Ed Page, Oct. 7), Robert C. Vanderet states that, “If what is now occurring was an effort to oust Judge Bork from his seat on the Court of Appeals because of decisions that he had rendered, then parallels to the 1986 anti-Bird campaign would indeed be warranted. Such is not the case, however.” He contends that the difference between the two campaigns is that Bork’s judicial philosophies and views are being evaluated before his confirmation, whereas Bird’s were considered after her 12 years or so on the bench.

Vanderet is the one who is missing the point. Bork’s philosophies and views are available for examination from his teachings, writings, speeches and the decisions he has rendered as a judge. Bird was an unknown quantity to the people of California, never having served as a judge and having only a limited career before her appointment. If she had been serving on the bench when former Gov. Jerry Brown nominated her or if she had been widely quoted on her philosophies, it is obvious that her rejection for appointment to the state Supreme Court would have been as certain as Bork’s appears to be.

The point is that California’s procedure in allowing a justice’s record after appointment and service is as proper as the federal pre-appointment hearings. No “perniciousness” (per Vanderet) exists.

HASKELL COLLIER

Whittier