To the editor: It’s deja vu all over again. Twenty-seven years ago, Anita Hill was butchered by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Democrats did nothing, and then-Supreme Court nominee Judge Clarence Thomas refused to answer any questions.
Instead, Thomas called the Senate hearings a “high-tech lynching.” He has maintained this attitude all these years as he seldom speaks but hatefully continues to wreak his revenge against Democrats by voting against them in the cases that come before the Supreme Court.
Now we’re in 2018. After all the hullabaloo dies down, Judge Brett Kavanaugh will likely be confirmed to the Supreme Court by the Senate. Given what is happening right now, I will not be surprised if Kavanaugh takes this same attitude toward the Democrats. Therefore, even if the Democrats are successful in taking over either the House or Senate in the 2018 midterm election, Justice Kavanaugh’s and Thomas’ votes will probably define what this country will be like for years to come.
Not a pretty picture, I’m afraid.
Bob Murtha, Santa Maria
To the editor: Op-ed article writer Timothy Phelps may have omitted the most important lesson.
Angela Wright, like Hill a former employee of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, also allegedly had been sexually harassed and propositioned by Thomas while she was at the EEOC.
Though Wright’s testimony undoubtedly would have corroborated Hill’s own account, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), conspicuously never called her to testify at Thomas’ confirmation hearing. This omission left Hill, the alleged victim, out to dry.
Biden’s inexcusable withholding of Wright’s critical testimony may be explained by Sen. Howard Metzenbaum’s (D-Ohio) famous remark in reference to Thomas’ alleged conduct: “If that’s sexual harassment, half the senators on Capitol Hill could be accused.”
Mark E. Kalmansohn, Santa Monica
The writer is a former assistant U.S. attorney (criminal division) in the Central District of California.
To the editor: We should be clear about what part of Christine Blasey Ford’s possible testimony might and might not justify a “no” vote on confirming Kavanaugh.
Are we offended that a teenage boy may have groped a teenage girl without her consent? Perhaps so, but teenage boys are stupid. That doesn’t make the alleged conduct right, but it does make it unsurprising.
In contrast, Justice Thomas was an adult when he is alleged to have harassed Hill; it’s also possible that he lied about his conduct to the Senate.
Vote against Kavanaugh because he might have lied about his teenage years to the Senate. Vote against him because he is a political operative. Vote against him because he has a weird and scary legal philosophy that will take the court down a dark path.
Don’t vote against him based on his alleged misdeeds as a teenager unless that standard can be applied to all men seeking positions of authority.
Judi Bloom, Manhattan Beach
To the editor: It’s interesting to see the GOP showing some spine in pushing forward on the Kavanaugh nomination. I doubt most people really care what Kavanaugh may have been doing as a drunken teenager. What counts is his subsequent apparently unblemished behavior.
And who are the Democrats to be lecturing anybody on sexual morality? After the Kennedys and Bill Clinton, they have absolutely nothing relevant to say on that subject, unless to further enlighten us with their in-your-face hypocrisy.
As for the “courage” of Kavanaugh’s accuser, what about Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick and Linda Tripp? Why didn’t the Democrats stand up for their courage?
Patrick M. Dempsey, Granada Hills