To the editor: As a nearly 50-year subscriber of the Los Angeles Times, I say respectfully that for many of us, the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation spectacle has confirmed the damage done to accused persons whom columnist Robin Abcarian and others have determined are guilty before they are proven so.
Kavanaugh is indeed a victim, as is his sexual assault accuser Christine Blasey Ford — both at the hand of the Democrats. Republicans, for their part, allow this charade to go on and on. Americans deserve better.
Abcarian can learn a great deal from Opinion section columnist Jonah Goldberg, who wrote an article in the same day’s newspaper that asked, “Could Brett Kavanaugh be angry because maybe — just maybe — he has been wrongly accused?”
Jan Wader, Pasadena
To the editor: Kavanaugh supporters lament the possibility that false accusations of sexual improprieties might ruin some innocent man’s career. That fits with GOP hand-wringing over the infinitesimally small chance that some illegal voter’s ballot might decide an election.
Reality check: Any given election’s outcome is exponentially more likely to be affected by cynical voter suppression laws than by illegal votes. Similarly, the chance that an alleged victim’s account is truthful vastly exceeds the chance that an accused sexual predator is being truthful.
But never mind inconvenient realities. Just as Republicans will stand by President Trump’s denial of sexual misconduct against any of his accusers, they will take Kavanaugh’s side over Ford’s.
Look for this country's women to resoundingly rebuke the GOP in next month’s election.
Devra Mindell, Santa Monica
To the editor: Abcarian asserts, “With an infinitesimal number of exceptions, men who are accused of sexual harassment and assault are not victims.”
Who are these exceptions? If we adhere to Abcarian’s hyperbolic denouncement of all men accused of sexual assault backed by today’s fervent #MeToo movement, there are no exceptions.
She caustically intimates that female accusers don’t lie; unless, naturally, if it’s proven in court, after dragging the accused through the endless mud of denunciations, that the accuser did indeed lie, as was the case with the three Duke University men’s lacrosse team players.
Giuseppe Mirelli, Los Angeles
To the editor: The idea that Kavanaugh must be proven guilty of criminal conduct for the Senate to reject his nomination to the Supreme Court is way off the mark.
The confirmation process for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is not like a criminal jury trial. The applicable standard for approval is not whether the nominee can be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether his integrity, temperament and honesty are above question.
In addition, a candidate who would have to recuse himself from a whole host of cases involving parties or issues against which he has previously expressed a strong negative bias should not be confirmed.
These are the standards that are and must be applicable to the evaluation of Supreme Court nominees.
Ray Bourhis, Santa Barbara
To the editor: There’s no need to investigate whether Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) leaked Ford’s confidential letter. There is proof positive she did. All you need to do is simply use the standard of evidence set forth by the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.
First, Feinstein had the motive: stopping Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Second, Feinstein cannot prove she did not do it.
Robert Flaxman, Beverly Hills