Choice for 7th Circuit Judgeship

There has been enough said, pro and con, concerning the fitness of Daniel Manion to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. But when The Times ridicules the quality of Manion’s scholarship, reasoning, and writing skills, it might at least take time to check the accuracy and quality of its editorial (June 24), “Is He Kidding?”

You charge that “shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state could not require the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools, Manion introduced a bill into the Indiana Legislature to do just that.” This is simply not true. In Stone vs. Graham, the Supreme Court did strike down a Kentucky statute requiring public schools to post the commandments. Manion’s bill would have allowed schools to post them if they so chose--a significant distinction in the tangled web of First Amendment law. Perhaps more important, the bill contained a provision requiring the removal of the commandments should the law be struck down in the courts.

There are, of course, some distinctions between the roles of legislators and judges. Regarding his prospective duties as an appellate judge, Manion has made it quite clear that the federal courts of appeals are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court--even those with which he personally disagrees.

The President was right to describe Manion as a man of both character and ability. He deserves confirmation.

TERRY EASTLAND

Washington

Eastland is director of public affairs at the Department of Justice.