Dear Editor,

I’ve been reflecting on the contents of Mr. Jeffery L. Carlson’s letter of September 19, and some of his points need comment.

Of course, a lot has happened in the Kavanaugh case in the past week, and it is no longer possible to sustain the illusion that this is the groundless sliming of a fine man. Dr. Ford’s letter was never “anonymous”; her identity was known from the beginning. Her evidence is credible and deserves serious scrutiny. Her taking a polygraph test early on is certainly a mark of good faith. Why wouldn’t Kavanaugh do the same? She is obviously sane, intelligent, and well grounded in reality, and like the similar case of Anita Hill, she had nothing to expect but grief from coming forward.

In the past, candidates for the Supreme Court have routinely been subjected to an FBI investigation. The fact that Judicial Committee Republicans refuse to consider doing so this time suggests strongly that they know there is something to hide. Add to that the frantic rush to get the nomination through in spite of widespread public opposition, and the question is inescapable: What’s being covered up? What’s the rush? Just follow accepted procedure and get on with it, and we can all go back to fretting about other things.

We know what the rush is. Republicans fear that the November 9 election is going to throw more power to the Democrats, and this chance will be lost. The Judicial Committee needs to revert to revert to normal procedure and take its time to determine the rights and wrongs of the situation. It would be fine with me if the man was credibly proven innocent of the charges, although I would still oppose his nomination on political grounds and because he has shown a tendency to tinker with the truth when asked certain uneasy questions, and actually may have committed perjury under examination on one previous occasion, but at least the thing would have been done right. One tainted Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, is more than enough.

There is nothing “treasonous” about opposing a President who gives every appearance of being unfit for the office, but I’m not here to argue about that. If there is any treason, it goes in the opposite direction. One further point as to terminology. On behalf of the “Liars, Leakers & Liberal Socialist Communists”, I must insist on accuracy of terms. A Socialist is one who supports government ownership of means of production. I don’t know anyone who’s for that, even the one or two emerging young politicians who have described themselves as Socialists.

The title of liberal I accept proudly. If it weren’t for liberals, Mr. Carlson, you would not have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, child labor laws, a 40-hour week, a minimum wage, and much else. All these were strongly opposed by conservatives. And if we’re talking about “Leakers”, quite a few of those have been presidential appointees inside the Oval Office, and we’re grateful for their insights. But enough for now.

With respect,

Dr. Karen L. Black,

Warren