TAKING ISSUE WITH CRITICS, JUSTICES ON POT

Once again, judicial activists have interfered with the will of the people.
In 1996, Californians went to the polls and passed Proposition 215,
allowing for the use of medical marijuana under the advice of a doctor.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court crossed into the boundary of states'
rights and invalidated California's medical marijuana practice. I anxiously
await the public outrage in opposition to these judges who continue to
legislate from the bench.

While I doubt the outcry will ring as loud as other alleged judicial
activist decisions, an important lesson in civics may be taught. Judicial
activism is a relative term dependent completely on one's political view.
When judges render an opinion we agree with, they are praised for upholding
the Constitution. However, when our opinions differ from those given from
the bench, they are deemed activist judges and criticized.

Judges exist to interpret the law, regardless of and protected from public
opinion and influence. We must trust them in that task.

BRETT McKINNEY El Cajon