Vacant Judgeships

Re “Rehnquist’s Aim Is True,” editorial, Jan 5:

Determining the qualifications of a judicial candidate to serve on the federal bench is no time for ideological debate about whether or not a specific candidate will or will not be an “activist judge,” when vacancies on the federal bench prevent the timely application of justice.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist (himself a Republican, appointed by two Republican presidents) and his views on the matter should be taken very seriously by the U.S. Senate in general, and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and the Senate Judiciary Committee in particular. Hatch needs to fully and truthfully explain his definition of “activist” (something he has effectively and consistently failed to do), and why that legally disqualifies any of President Clinton’s nominees for the federal bench. Simply delaying the confirmation or rejection of federal judicial candidates on ideological grounds does not serve the interests of justice. The federal judiciary is supposed to be an independent and coequal branch of the federal government, and the ideological positions being taken by Hatch are making the now-independent federal judiciary more and more beholden, therefore less independent, which, it would seem to me, would be unconstitutional.

CHRIS WINFIELD

Anaheim

* Why was the Republicans’ response to “Key Senator’s Verdict on Vacant U.S. Judgeships” (Jan. 3), showing Clinton is responsible, placed on A16, while Rehnquist’s opinion that it was the Congress’ fault (“Rehnquist Chides GOP for Judicial Stalling,” Jan. 1), placed on A1, center?

The Times did not report on the entire report of Rehnquist, only this one statement. Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, gave facts of Clinton’s lack of cooperation.

The president must be too busy fund-raising to have the time to nominate judges for the vacancies!

SONDRA J. KATZ

Los Angeles