To the editor: Your article says that both Sens. Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) “accomplished what they needed to” in Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
I agree about Feinstein, but I thought Harris behaved like a leftist Joe McCarthy. Her bullying of Kavanaugh was difficult to witness; I certainly would have lost my cool.
Harris was not trying to find out where he stood on any legal matter. No, she was merely grandstanding and trying to rattle him. In a super-aggressive tone, she asked a question and later interrupted him with “yes or no,” “answer” and “be careful, judge.” In the end she had no information about his possible contact at the law firm she asked about.
If this “firebrand newcomer” is contemplating a presidential run, she should forget it now. She doesn’t have a chance.
Marjorie Perloff, Pacific Palisades
To the editor: This article describes Kamala Harris as a “provocateur” for simply doing her job and asking Kavanaugh hard questions. The article describes Feinstein as “polite” and says, “Feinstein’s noncombative style is sometimes more effective.”
It continues: “It was Feinstein who … prodded the president to promise to support legislation to provide legal status for people brought into the country illegally as children and to ban assault weapons.”
But the last sentence in the article says that President Trump “later backed away from the statements.” I would describe that as completely ineffective.
Eva Rejhons, Valencia
To the editor: Feinstein pressed Kavanaugh on his stance that assault weapons are “commonly used” and thus cannot be banned. Assault weapons have become more common since the federal ban on them expired in 2004.
In contrast, abortion has been legal (and common) since 1973, and far more Americans have availed themselves of the right to abortion than the right to an assault weapon.
So, if “commonly used” is a valid protection of a constitutional right, Kavanaugh should not vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
David L. Burdick, Ridgecrest, Calif.