Readers React: Kavanaugh’s defenders are right — we don’t have enough facts. So why not have the FBI investigate?

Donald Trump
Protesters with Women’s March and others gather in front of the Supreme Court on Sept. 24.
(Carolyn Kaster / AP)

To the editor: I agree with Jonah Goldberg that in the case of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, “proof” should never be “subordinated to mere belief.” That is why the FBI should investigate the very serious sexual misconduct allegations against him.

Thursday’s scheduled “he said, she said” circus in front of the Judiciary Committee will not suffice; both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, deserve to be heard by a nonpartisan body that can also question potential witnesses under oath. Otherwise, this allegation of sexual impropriety will forever hang over Kavanaugh’s head and will taint every decision that he makes as a Supreme Court justice.

One has to wonder why those who say Kavanaugh is innocent are so reluctant to have the FBI conduct an investigation. Is it possible they are willing to tarnish the Supreme Court, one of the bedrocks of American democracy, simply to gain a partisan advantage?

Pamela Eilerson, Malibu



To the editor: I’ve lost count of how many times pundits like Goldberg have used some variation of “innocent until proven guilty” to defend Kavanaugh.

This is not a criminal trial. It’s a job interview. Kavanaugh has no constitutional right to a lifetime Supreme Court appointment. Nobody has ever wrapped up a job interview and said, “Well, there’s no incontrovertible proof of criminal conduct, so I guess we’ve got to hire this one.”

It is the job of the Senate to determine if a nominee will serve the nation wisely and honorably, and a record of multiple credible accusations of sexual misconduct is highly relevant, even if the charges won’t be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom.


Add to this the evidence that Kavanaugh may have lied to Congress in previous testimony and thousands of pages of relevant documentation withheld from members of Senate Judiciary Committee, and it’s already well past time to deep-six this misbegotten nomination.

Branden Frankel, Encino


To the editor: Goldberg’s column on belief trumping facts should be required reading for all senators, both male and female.

Jim Harley, Banning


To the editor: In an ideal democracy every senator would approach Kavanaugh’s confirmation process with an open mind. But most senators already have signaled which way they will vote, regardless of testimony they may hear.

The few GOP senators who assertedly remain undecided and seem committed to judicious decision-making doubtless will be pressured to toe the party line. Whatever pressure is applied to them behind closed doors may well trump whatever Kavanaugh’s accusers tell them.


It’s a pity that every senator’s decision won’t be based an even-handed appraisal of proffered testimony. Our nation’s founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves.

Rona Dolgin, Los Angeles


To the editor: Goldberg is right about presuming the innocence of an accused car thief unless the evidence proves otherwise.

But we don’t blame the victim for being intoxicated while the car was stolen then give her a few days to prove her case without an investigation before the alleged thief gets a seat on the Supreme Court.

Tom Walker, Costa Mesa


To the editor: Goldberg’s column provokes one question and answers another.


If a merchant is interviewing a prospective employee who is otherwise well qualified, yet has been accused by previous employers of stealing, is he required to hire him?

Apparently, those guards we see at high-end jewelry stores are actually there to keep an eye on the employees.

Fred W. Burkardt, Rancho Cucamonga

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

Get our weekly Opinion newsletter