Climate change answer disqualifies Barrett for Supreme Court

Amy Coney Barrett has forfeited her right to be on the U.S. Supreme Court due to her convoluted answer to the simple question about climate change.

The confirmation process is a sham in many ways. Because the outcome is a forgone conclusion, it has ceased to be a deliberative process on judicial philosophy. The senators make each question a political speech and the candidate finds clever ways to say nothing - as an homage to her mentor, Donald Trump.

When asked a clear ”yes or no” scientific question about climate change, she should have jumped at the chance to give a clear answer — but she did not. She replied that it is a “very contentious matter of public debate.” Settled science is clear and visible proof abounds — so she is either grossly uniformed or she lied.

Does she think that antibiotics cure infections, or is that a matter of “public debate” as well?

Some Republicans deny climate science because their backers are in the fossil fuel industry; Trump makes light of Covid 19 because it hurts his re-election chances, but that doesn’t change the facts. A basic requirement for a candidate to the U. S. Supreme Court would be the intelligence and reasoning power to base decisions on verifiable facts. According to her testimony, Ms. Barrett is not such a person; she is a political hack who does not qualify to be on the highest court.

Carol Kraines, Deerfield

Soothing Trump’s fears

To soothe Donald Trump’s fears — stated during one of his still-maskless rallies as the country is experiencing the predicted spike in COVID cases this fall — about perhaps having to leave the country after losing to the “worst candidate ever” I would offer him this: Don’t worry, Mr. President. Hillary survived.

Jim Koppensteiner, Niles

Difficult position

I read the article about the police officers who covered up for Supt. Eddie Johnson the night he was discovered in his vehicle asleep at the wheel at a stop sign. The two probationary officers who did not follow police protocol received,figuratively speaking, a slap on the wrist with each getting a 1 day suspension. Other officers up the chain, received stiffer penalties.

For all intents and purposes, justice was doled out to all involved. In defense of the officers involved in the “coverup “ I cannot imagine how difficult it was for the officers to be placed in the position they were put in. We learn at a very early age, to respect our bosses and their position. With that being said, it is understandable that they decided not to follow police protocol and administer field sobriety tests. I’m sure they were worried about their careers in doing so.No, they didn’t do the right thing but I understand and sympathize with their situation.

John Livaich, Oak Lawn