Trump’s tweet damages Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

I remain unconvinced that the heedless actions of a drunken 17-year-old, regardless of how egregious or harmful those actions may have been, should be held against that person for the rest of his or her life.

Nonetheless, given the appalling ignorance, cruelty, and crassness of Donald Trump’s tweet, I can no longer adhere to that argument in Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s case.

If Trump’s message reflects the views of Kavanaugh’s supporters, they do not merit having a mouthpiece or a representative on the Supreme Court (or, for that matter, the White House).

David G. Whiteis, Humboldt Park

Make Kavanaugh wait

We Chicagoans know what happens when decisions are rammed through a legislative body without sufficient time to review all pertinent information.

We got a 75-year parking-meter lease; the Supreme Court would get a lifetime appointee with a dark cloud of suspicion over his head making judicial decisions impacting the lives of women for decades.

President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, waited nine months and never received the courtesy of a hearing. Kavanaugh can wait a few more days.

Richard A. Kosinski, Edison Park

Feinstein out of line

Can the Democratic Party’s behavior sink any lower than it has, during these confirmation hearings?

Senator Feinstein should be censured, at the very least, for her unethical behavior, during these proceedings. She has had Dr. Ford’s letter, alleging a high school sex assault, by Judge Kavanaugh in the 80s, since July of this year. Yet she didn’t reveal the letter until two days after the conclusion of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings.

Coincidentally, she is the senior Democratic Senator on this committee. Sen. Feinstein’s intention is obvious: she is more concerned about blocking Kavanaugh’s confirmation, than she is about Dr. Ford’s well being.

Mike Rice, Jefferson Park

Drop it: “man and wife”

The headline of Lynn Sweet’s piece about Michelle Obama pronouncing local Chicago couple “man and wife” is outdated and offensive (Sunday). The notion of a married woman as nothing more than her husband’s property has been outlawed since the mid-19th century with anti-coverture laws like the Married Women’s Property Act; this has been outlawed as long as anti-slavery laws.

Though the article quotes a guest as describing the officiating using those words, I doubt whether Michelle Obama said that, and more likely said “husband and wife.” The Sun-Times could have used a less offensive and accurate headline like “marries local couple” or “officiates at wedding of local couple.”

Melissa Josephs, Lake View