It's premature to back court nominee

The Supreme Court nomination is of great interest to most of us, or should be, because of the implications for court protection or reversal of protection of many rights enacted by law; foremost for many is protection of health care rights for pre-existing conditions, also of privacy, and some sensible gun rights as had been the case when machine guns were outlawed in the lawless times of bootlegging.

The U.S. Senate is charged with "consultation" on such appointments, and over time, that has also meant approval or rejection. The hearings have not begun, although pro and con views are being bellowed by all sides of all issues.

Congressman Peter Roskam has lent his endorsement to the latest nominee, which is right but apparently in lock step with President Donald Trump's enamored view of the nominee's earlier view that any president is too busy to be accountable for criminal behavior. Mr. Roskam does us all a disservice in making such an endorsement before a single hearing has been held or a single public question has been asked. But then, he has had little apparent concern about what we voters have to say about much of anything.

Trying to find out what is going on in the approval process is no clearer than looking to see the bottom of the Mississippi River, and such endorsements lend nothing to the education of the public.

Edward Marth

St. Charles