Letters to the editor (Sept. 30, 2018)

The Kavanaugh circus

Judge Kavanaugh is correct. The hearing was a circus, and the clowns had center stage. The Democrats fawning over Dr. Ford, playing to their base and inviting women’s votes. The Republicans unwilling to call Dr. Ford a liar, throwing tantrums at the Democrats for doing what they would have done had the positions been reversed. Each group secure in the delusion that their party is the one true faith, anointed by God to impose its one sided will on a multi-sided nation.

Were the Democrats in control, they would strive to control the Supreme Court just as fanatically as the Republicans. This time, however, the Republicans are also caught in a trap of their own making. How can they deny the appointment of a party faithful judge for something he may have done in his youth, while at the same time groveling at the feet of a Republican by convenience (RBC) egotist who has been accused of far worse. Yes, it was a circus, and Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are laughing.

Don’t want to deny health insurance

I could challenge Congressman Estes on a number of things in his opinion piece ("Medicare for All means security for none", 23 September Eagle Opinion page), but I'd rather go straight to what really irritates me. Quote: "...seniors who have paid their entire lives into traditional Medicare would have to compete with the entire population for health care resources".

What a cowardly thing to say or suggest, that I, a senior, should want to deny health insurance, and therefore, ultimately, health care, to someone else, because I will probably need it myself.

Congressman, your appeal is to a part of me that does not exist.

‘He that is without sin’

Regarding the problems Judge Brett Kavanaugh is encountering, I am reminded of two quotes coming from a well-known “judge” over 2,000 years ago: “Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more” and “He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone.”

The current issue appears to be that, because Judge Kavanaugh is alleged to have committed a very grave sin nearly four decades ago, or possibly even within the past two decades, does this disqualify him from serving as on the U.S. Supreme Court today? Even if it turns out the past accusations are true, I would think his more recent behavior and lifestyle would be a better measure of his character.

Suppose there was a way we could go back and look at the lives of the current Supreme Court justices? What if incidents from their school days such as lying, petty theft, cheating on exams, school yard bullying, etc. suddenly came to surface? Would this be grounds to remove them from the bench? There isn’t a person on Earth today who hasn’t committed some kind of an infraction in the past. So, where do we draw the line to consider someone unqualified to fill a public office? Shouldn’t one’s more recent behavior and lifestyle trump more distasteful behavior from one’s distant past when “judging” a person today?

If accusations from years ago begin to surface against others in public office, where will it all end? And, will the accusers be able to claim that they are without sin?