Readers React: Brett Kavanaugh’s dangerous reasoning on allowing assault weapons
To the editor: What has most disturbed me about Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee was his response to a question by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) regarding his views on assault rifles (which are essentially weapons of war).
He delicately dodged her question but did state that so many people owned them, which made them in common use. Feinstein asked, “You’re saying the numbers determine common use?”
Later, Kavanaugh stated that at his daughter’s school, security had been increased. It’s assault rifles that have been instrumental in the murder of many of our children.
At one time, this country had slaves, but we moved beyond that. At one time, this country did not allow women to vote, but we moved beyond that. Now we have a weapon that has been instrumental in the slaughter many of our children, and those in power are looking away.
I am appalled and deeply saddened.
Mary Mills Presby, Beverly Hills
To the editor: Kavanaugh has shown his hand. He says he respects precedents and he emphasized that the Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision on abortion was precedent-setting.
Casey didn’t overturn Roe vs. Wade, but it introduced the concept of “burden.” The Supreme Court determined that certain things are undue burdens on a woman’s right to choose.
However, one person’s view of an undue burden is another person’s justifiable burden. This is all Kavanaugh would need to gut Roe and make it virtually impossible for women to exercise their fundamental right to control their bodies and their lives.
Barbara Jackson, Cerritos
To the editor: Democratic senators are trying their best to get Kavanaugh to weigh in and answer questions on presidential powers, investigations and indictments.
The Democratic senators have accepted the fact that Kavanaugh will be confirmed. If they can get him to respond to their questions regarding the president, Kavanaugh might have to recuse himself if a case comes before the Supreme Court.
Andrew Ko, San Marino
To the editor: The hypocrisy of President Trump’s and Kavanaugh’s supporters is off the charts.
Consider this comment from a reader: “Our duly elected president (hate him or not) has the legal authority to select Supreme Court justices. Then, it is up to the Senate to either approve or reject his nominee. There is no ‘threat to democracy’ here.”
No, the threat to democracy came when the Senate refused to even hold hearings on President Obama’s nominee after Justice Antonin Scalia died in early 2016, let alone vote to approve or reject him.
Steve Mehlman, Beaumont
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.