Conspiracy and careful judgments
Published 8:21 am Wednesday, October 3, 2018
To the Editor:
Conspiracy theories have become commonplace when the following occurs: 1) an event happens that someone doesn’t like, 2) a group that they don’t like could benefit from this event, 3) therefore, they say the group they don’t like “conspired” to make the event occur. This is another way of calling someone “guilty” simply because they have a motive.
In selecting a Supreme Court judge, I care about their professional background and how their career shows their ability to understand the law, to carefully evaluate facts, and to make objective judgments. I value the Supreme Court’s long history of minimizing partisanship on the Court to help them make judgments that are as objective as possible. With respect to Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, I care little about the events of his pre-professional years, but I care much about the person he is today. I accept that even the best of us will make reckless statements in anger and frustration when caught off-guard, but 10 days after horrible accusations were made against Judge Kavanaugh, he stood before Congress, angrily claimed a conspiracy by Democrats and the Clintons, and provided no evidence. Even if he has been terribly wronged, do we want a Supreme Court judge that will claim conspiracy without providing evidence — a judge that makes charges without proof? This is the judge that Kavanaugh has shown himself to be — very human, but not a careful judge.
D. McCoy
Elizabethton