No headline

Sen. Mike Crapo took time to explain to Ph.D. Nancy Gerth about the Senate’s advice and consent role in approving a nominee to the Supreme Court. This is not a trial process, but as Sen. Chuck Schumer said in a similar situation in Barack Obama’s time in office, the only important thing to determine is the nominee’s record as a judge.

The American Bar Association was a sterling A-plus evaluation for Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Seems Schumer doesn’t believe his own ethical standards. Schumer was primed to declare any nominee by our duly elected president as not fit for the position. Then the letter from another Ph.D. via a Democratic Hawaiian representative and forwarded to California’s Democratic Diane Feinstein who sat on the information for six weeks of the evaluation process and then poped up with the dubious letter of fact just as the committee was ready to forward the recommendation for full Senate voting, turned the process into a trial and a fiasco talk about morals and ethics of the Democratic politicians. A vague dream of some bad episode in a Ph.D.s life has turned the advise and consent bit straight down the toilet. Now in spite of Sen. Crapo’s not feeling a seventh FBI check on the nominee is indicated, our local Ph.D. “knows better.”

Geez Louise, if I had treated on dreams, incomplete rumor and no firm evidence of a patient’s problem, I would have been in court every other day instead of never over 40 years.

PETER HERAPER, M.D.

Sandpoint