Ronald George

Re “Fighting for a People’s Court,” Oct. 29:

Your profile of Chief Justice Ronald George dealt superficially with his outrageous decision in American Academy of Pediatrics vs. Lungren, the parental consent case. Judicial activism is not courageous, and George’s decision is not “legally conservative.” It represents a usurpation of legislative prerogative (overturning a statute passed by substantial majorities in a Democrat-controlled Legislature), a disregard for precedent (ignoring nine decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court upholding laws similar to the California statute under review) and an appalling insouciance toward stare decisis (rehearing and then reversing a decision that the California Supreme Court had already decided, based solely on the retirement of two respected jurists from the court).

As Justice Stanley Mosk, a pro-choice liberal, wrote in his dissent, the issue is not the morality of abortion, but the scope of parents’ authority over their minor children. The Times’ own poll shows that 67% of all voters support the requirement of parental consent for minors to obtain an abortion.

Critics of George’s decision (and supporters of the initiative to overturn it) are not all “abortion opponents,” as the article suggests. I am pro-choice, but I am also a parent. It’s more complicated than pro-life vs. pro-choice.

MARK S. PULLIAM

San Diego

Thanks for the insightful article on George. I find it typical that some of his colleagues are annoyed by his drive to accomplish what others can’t. When one man’s hard work makes his peers’ efforts look slack, they’re bound to see him as a troublemaker. My guess is that they’re just not ambitious enough.

MIKE LASKAVY

North Hollywood