Nesrine Malik suggests Martin Luther King’s “long arc of justice” has lost its way over the recent Ford-Kavanaugh debacle (The Kavanaugh case revealed a system rigged against women, Journal, 8 October). She is wrong. Not appointing Brett Kavanaugh over an unproven allegation would have signalled a dark day for justice, for society and for women. As a leftwing feminist, I have felt alone in finding the response by journalists and women’s groups to Kavanaugh’s appointment deeply troubling.
This case has implications for the way institutions deal with allegations of sexual violence that go far beyond the US Senate. Institutions such as universities are increasingly conducting internal investigations into allegations of sexual violence and applying a much lower standard of proof than in a criminal court to determine the guilt of an employee or student. Destroying someone’s career over an unproven allegation or because one person’s account sounds more convincing than another’s is a dangerous trend fuelled by the #MeToo movement that can never be a good thing for society – or women, who must receive proper justice for crimes committed against them. Supporting victims of sexual violence and encouraging them to report sex crimes to the police must be improved, but institutions should be very wary of playing criminal investigators.
Gemma McGregor
Newcastle upon Tyne
The confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court is a dark moment in the campaign against sexual violence. Last week Donald Trump insisted to laughing supporters in Mississippi that Dr Christine Blasey Ford couldn’t remember where she had been allegedly assaulted. “Upstairs, downstairs, I dunno”, he mocked. But Dr Ford repeatedly testified to the Senate judiciary committee that she was attacked in an upstairs room.
The president’s cruel, knockabout routine and throwaway untruths have consequences. Michael Bromwich, Dr Ford’s lawyer, tweeted that Trump’s “vile and soulless” attack on his client will mean “sexual assault survivors” everywhere will be more scared to speak out. Wavering US senators who voted to elevate Kavanaugh for selfish political reasons and against their consciences should be ashamed.
Joe McCarthy
Dublin, Ireland
Both Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominees for supreme court justice, were confirmed by the Senate via a historic rule change. Previously, 60 votes were required, but the Republican majority – not satisfied with having prevented President Obama from appointing a properly qualified judge to a vacancy – has enabled both men to secure a position that has constitutional law at its heart, with long-term consequences.
The UK government’s insistence on the binding nature of the 2016 referendum, which also involves constitutional change and the future of our country, is equally alarming.
Alongside Trump’s minority election, are both countries in a state of constitutional crisis? Are we becalmed observers of coups exploiting outmoded voting systems? In the absence – in both countries – of effective opposition, it feels that way.
Marcia Saunders
London
We Guardian readers are a liberal lot. Suppose Judge Kavanaugh was being proposed by Obama and was in favour of abortion and gun control, and not evangelical about religion. Would we condemn the alleged attack but question both the veracity of the accuser and the scale of the offence? Would we excuse him (or her) on the basis that there are many things we do in our teens that we regret in later life? I find Brett Kavanaugh so offensive that I am not sure whether I can answer the questions honestly.
Paul Baker
Beckenham, Kent
On the evidence of his boorish performance before the Senate judiciary committee, Brett Kavanaugh would be assessed as not fit to serve even on a local magistrates bench in England and Wales.
Robin Wendt
Secretary, Cheshire advisory committee on JP appointments 1979-90
Before Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the supreme court was confirmed, we witnessed a flurry of highly patriotic advocacy as thousands of my fellow law professors signed a letter to the Senate arguing that Judge Kavanaugh did not display the impartiality or appropriate temperament for promotion to the supreme court. I did not sign the letter. Kavanaugh’s partisan outburst, while clearly highly inappropriate, was the least problematic aspect of his candidacy.
As law professors, we need to level with the country. The republic has a serious problem of institutional corruption. In the face of an increasingly diverse demographic of voters, the Republican party is in danger of becoming a white minority regional party. In an attempt to stave off this fate, the president, whose own electoral legitimacy is at issue, has implemented a range of measures to marginalise those whom he perceives to be unlikely to vote Republican (African Americans, Latino Americans, Muslims, young voters, immigrants and so forth). We now face the prospect that the court will acquiesce to a range of constitutionally problematic measures including the curtailment of voting rights, as Congress already has.
Notably, this was in train long before Trump set foot in the White House. Trump simply tore the mask off – with Kavanaugh’s help. In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, Kavanaugh’s partisan outburst may turn out to be a blessing in disguise if it helps law professors sound the alarm bell. Although it is inspiring to see legal elites organising to save their country’s highest court, we are long past the point of the court being in danger – as Erwin Chemerinsky pointed out in the American Prospect last week.
A helpful analogy comes to mind. Black parents have what is widely called “the talk” with their teenage boys. They tell their children early about the dangers of institutional racism to black life. While deeply depressing, black parents do this to avoid far worse. Law professors need to take a cue from black parents – Americans need “the talk”. Anything less is coddling the country.
Eleanor Marie Lawrence Brown
Professor of law and international affairs, Rock Ethics Institute, Pennsylvania State University
There is a threat posed to the supreme court posed by Brett Kavanagh’s nomination that commentators have failed to mention. The supreme court has no powers of its own, it judgments are respected because politicians and people in the US respect its authority. Donald Trump risks trashing the courts reputation, as now it will not only be seen as a highly partisan body but one that includes one justice with a dubious reputation. The more liberal states in the US will feel justified in ignoring its judgments, as happened in the 1960s when the southern states ignored its rulings on civil rights. Donald Trump’s malign influence threatens to make the supreme court as dysfunctional as the divided and partisan Senate and House of Representatives. What will happen when Republicans try to use the partisan supreme court to frustrate the legislative programme of a Democratic president?
Derrick Joad
Leeds
Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters