YOUR VIEWS
Confirm Kavanaugh
Donald Trump is now an “unindicted co-conspirator” in several federal crimes. If the further examination of Michael Cohen, as his plea bargain agreement takes shape, reveals more criminal involvement by Trump, the issue of indictment of a sitting president is again at issue for the first time since Clinton. That makes the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to become a Supreme Court justice of great import. Two issues will be front and center of his confirmation hearings: “Can a sitting president be indicted?” and “What about Roe v. Wade?”
Kavanaugh’s writings show a strong belief that precedent should be followed unless there are strong legal issues to be addressed in a later case. As to Roe, Kavanaugh has said he would follow that policy if confirmed to the circuit court. He has not stated that he would look at an abortion case any differently at the
Supreme Court.
As to indictment of a president, outside impeachment, Kavanaugh’s writings indicate he agrees with the standing Department of
Justice position that such an act should be undertaken with great caution, because of the impact on presidential duties that might be impaired. Further that finding prompts Congress to enact an extension of any statutes of limitation until the person involved is no longer in office.
Kavanaugh is a bright and careful legal scholar, and a fair and careful judge. Barring some unexpected or outre statement from him during confirmation hearings, he should be confirmed.
Thomas Baines, Oklahoma City
Event worth noting
I am a 1957 graduate of Central High School. I have read with interest the articles concerning the civil rights movement and the sit-in demonstrations of August 1958. During the 1955-56 school year, Central High School was integrated. Black students participated in all activities, clubs and sports teams. I never saw or heard about any racial problems occurring.
Has everyone forgotten about this historical event? I would like to see this recognized as a significant event and added to our state’s history.
Joyce Hall Johnson, Edmond
They won’t coexist
Randy Wedel (Your Views, Aug. 17) asked how Oklahoma’s civil asset forfeiture laws will coexist with medical marijuana’s cash transactions. The short answer is they won’t coexist very well at all, from the perspective of any concerned Oklahoma taxpayer. Use of civil asset forfeiture by the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics, or any other law enforcement group, can be a legal but seldom legitimate approach to financially bankrupting a purported drug dealer. The problem is it also can be an open door to corruption and a way that individuals within law enforcement can enrich themselves and their group while standing behind the shield and cloak of fighting the war on drugs.
Derek Pace, Calvin
Society’s demise
Great reporting on bureaucratic marijuana use infighting between personalities underscores the demise of a society surrendered to its whims. I sympathize with patients who believe they have found salvation in pot — over the countless non-opioids already available. Enabling organizations also are grateful as these voices alleviate the greater absence of scientific data to substantiate claims. What remains lost is the road map ahead after demands are all achieved.
No one dares to ask what the perfect marijuana functioning society looks like. We assume individuals will find a way to restrain themselves and their drug use so that it doesn’t impact their professional lives, not to mention the countless others dependent upon them for a functional society. After all, if legalizing vices has taught us anything, it is that people readily self-monitor to the degree that the community at large is barely impacted let alone hindered, right?
Wayne Hull, Yukon