Christopher Heard's article (Editorial Pages, Sept. 22) attempts to justify Gov. Deukmejian's partisan attack on the so-called "liberal" Supreme Court justices up for reconfirmation on the November ballot by a ruse that reeks of smoke and reflects like the cracked mirror it is.
The ruse is simple: If a judge interprets the Constitution so as to include any class previously unfairly discriminated against, that judge is "activist." If, on the other hand, a judge limits the protection of the laws to those classes who already had "rights" when the Constitution was written, that judge is applying "neutral, objective, uniformly applied principles."
This is the same conservative claptrap that George Orwell's "1984" labeled "Newspeak." Call something "neutral" when it interprets the word "equality" to be limited to those classes who already have it, and "activist" when it thoughtfully interprets it the way any second grader would . . . to balance the rights of citizens so as to eliminate the prejudice and ignorance that informed early state governments and courts.
To call judicial obstructionism "impartiality" and "objectivity" and any move by the court to apply dictionary definitions of liberty and equality "substituting the judge's wishes and values" is patently ridiculous.