Thomas Oatway | Kavanaugh, Uncle Earl and the Role of Politics in Judicial Confirmation

Letters to the Editor
Share on facebook
Share
Share on twitter
Tweet
Share on email
Email

Steve Lunetta, regarding your commentary on Sept. 20, “Kavanaugh, Uncle Earl, and #MeToo,” I must question some of the comments from “Uncle Earl.” 

First, the lack of testimony or evidence of other possible witnesses is missing, along with an investigation by the FBI, which is entrusted to perform such duties in the public interest.

Second, the other alleged witness to this incident, Mr. Mark Judge, made a public statement, but it was not under oath, which can be a whole different thing if a possibility of a felony for lying under oath or to law enforcement becomes an issue.

Third, minors who commit a serious crime should not be considered for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, or any other judgeship for that matter.

Fourth, alcohol is not an excuse, and Mr. Judge has published a memoir of his excessive drinking and foolish exploits, along with his buddy “Bart O’Kavanaugh.”

Fifth, Kavanaugh testified under oath that he never observed any sexual improprieties by one of his early legal mentors, Judge Alex Kazinski, who has been accused by 15 women of such (now we really need that polygraph test on Kavanaugh).

Finally, I do agree that there is far more politics involved in this confirmation process than there should be. Republicans are defending Kavanaugh without calling for an independent investigation. Democrats are questioning his qualifications based upon political and legal history of the judge, not just the allegations of Dr. Ford.

What we do not want is a flawed nominee to be appointed to the highest court of the land, nor a fully qualified and good person to be disqualified based on inadequate investigation of the allegations.

Oops, we already did have a nominee rejected by politics, Judge Garland.

Never mind.

Thomas Oatway

Valencia

Advertisement

Related To This Story

Latest NEWS