Summit Daily letters: Kavanaugh is beyond qualified | SummitDaily.com

Summit Daily letters: Kavanaugh is beyond qualified

Kavanaugh is beyond qualified

Susan Knopf writes that "Kavanaugh is not fit for court" in a full page editorial.

First, she says that some of his finances seem unusual. But what she refers to is trivial and irrelevant. He's done nothing illegal. Her second argument implies he's been nominated because of his "white male privilege." This is simply spiteful and also irrelevant.

Her only substantive argument is his court decisions. But here too she falls short. She refers to only two decisions in which he wrote dissenting opinions. I'm confident there isn't a sitting federal appellate judge who hasn't filed at least two dissents. Is that the criteria on which we should decide if a candidate is fit to be a Supreme Court Justice? Of course not. The decision should be based on his overall qualifications for that position.

What do those who vetted his legal career say? The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Judge Kavanaugh its highest rating for fitness to serve on the Supreme Court. Did Knopf tell us this? No. The ABA evaluates nominees based on "professional competence, integrity and judicial temperament." The ABA further stated that Lisa Blatt, a partner at a leading Washington law firm "who describes herself as a liberal Democrat and feminist," also supports Kavanuagh. Also supporting Kavanaugh is Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar, a Hillary Clinton supporter who said in a The New York Times op-ed that Kavanaugh is a superb, widely respected nominee whose ideas have influenced the U.S. Supreme Court.

Knopf simply doesn't like Judge Kavanaugh because he's a conservative. That's insufficient to deny his confirmation.

Recommended Stories For You

James Tuthill

Silverthorne

A lesson in forms of government

I'm feeling that there are those who are confused by the differences between communism, socialism, democratic socialism and capitalism. Although these definitions were not necessarily the original meanings of these forms of government, they are the current definitions.

Communism originated in Karl Marx's theory of revolutionary socialism, which advocated a communal ownership and governance of the means of production, and the eventual establishment of a classless society. Since those in power decide how the country's resources will be allocated, the chance of economic success is very small. Socialist China is the exception due to its migration to a market economy.

Capitalism and the recently termed democratic socialism are democracies in which most of the goods and services provided are determined by supply and demand. Supply is usually set by the cost of production and demand is usually set by the price. If the price is too high for a product, demand will go down with a corresponding drop in supply. This method works successfully for most products

The main differences between capitalism as practiced in the USA and democratic socialism as practiced by countries such as Australia, Canada and eastern Europe is what services will be supplied or controlled by the government and their approach to how their election process is handled.

Most democratic socialist countries will provide their citizens with medical care and higher education. Regarding medical services and medicines, the USA allows the market demand to determine prices while most democratic socialist countries demand that actual costs be used to determine prices. Consequently, it has been well documented that health care costs run consistently three times higher in the USA.

Another major difference is their approach to politics and elections. I will use the USA and Canada for comparison. A major difference is that we, except for some very minor exceptions, have two political parties while Canada has 13 — 11 are typically represented in their government. The result is that the political parties must work together to get things done. The second big difference is how much money may be given to political parties. In the USA, there is no limit as to how much money may be given by individuals, groups or companies to political parties. Consequently, there is a strong feeling in our country that the positions taken by our politicians are many times not in the best interest of their constituents. Will Rogers, a very famous social commentator from the 1920s and 1930s said it best: "We have the best politicians' money can buy!"

In Canada, by comparison, the limit that any person or group can contribute is $1,575! If this restriction isn't enough, the people can, if they feel it necessary, call for a "Vote of Confidence" regarding the current administration. In Canada, this has been done twice this century. One of these votes resulted in support for the current administration while the other received enough votes to kick out the current party in power and required a new election within 60 days!

Because of these provisions, most democratic socialist countries feel that their government works for them and their well-being. The interesting consequence of this attitude is that the people are more likely than not to vote for tax increases.

I hope that this gives the readers a more realistic picture of how capitalism and democratic socialism differ. Sadly, I feel that our political system won't change primarily because those with the money and power want to keep things as they are.

Terry Schoonover

Breckenridge

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.