A Friend's Letter-to-the-Editor

 

Wittman’s Trademark

            I agree with the recent letter labeling Congressman Wittman as Trump’s enabler. In fact, I would go even further. Wittman’s silence on so many issues stands in sharp contrast to the tone of his emails flooding into peoples’ inboxes saying he represents us.

            A large number of Wittman’s constituents are active duty or retired military. Yet when Trump belittles and ridicules those who go into the military, those who are wounded and those who lost their lives for this country, the congressman is silent.

            When Trump said former Arizona Senator John McCain was a hero only because he got caught; I like people who don’t get caught. McCain was tortured and spent five years in a North Vietnamese prison.   Now, more evidence of Trump ridiculing those who fought and died for this country, is emerging. And Wittman doesn’t call the President out for his remarks.

            Don’t forget Wittman’s silence about Congressman Jim Jordan, the holier-than-thou Representative from Ohio. Jordan is embroiled in a sex scandal relating to his ignoring male students’ complaints about being assaulted by a team doctor at Ohio State. Several of the victims have said they reported the incidents to then-assistant wrestling coach Jordan, who did nothing to stop the molestations.

            Jordan’s silence helped enable Dr. Strauss to continue sexually assault young men. I am a retired nurse and have seen the psychological damage sexual assaults can have on young men and women.

            Enabling appears to be Wittman’s trademark—Wittman looks the other way and thereby enables people to get away with almost anything. I don’t want an enabler representing me.

The Virginia Supreme Court--Trustworthy?

 

            F. Lee Baily, speaking nearly two decades ago following the mass shooting at Appalachian School of Law, said, “The God of common law is not justice. The God of common law is consistency.”

            Consistency should be adherence to the law. But if consistency is devotion to ideology regardless of the law, that is a corruption. There is evidence the Virginia Supreme Court is wedded to ideology—even to the point of introducing false evidence in at least one decision.

            Two Virginia Tech families, the Prydes and Petersons, sued over the deaths of their daughters in Cho’s rampage. They won a jury verdict and were each awarded $100,000.

            The Virginia Supreme Court overturned the verdict. Justice Powell erroneously asserted Blacksburg Police Chief Crannis and not Tech Police Chief Flinchum was in charge of the investigation following the initial double homicide. Crannis did not have the authority to warn the campus, therefore the school is not liable.

            Several times under oath, both Crannis and Flinchum testified the Flinchum was in charge on April 16, 2007. Nowhere in the trial transcript does it say Crannis was in charge.

            This November, Virginians will vote on a redistricting bill aimed at curtailing gerrymandering. If the bill passes, a 16-member commission made up of eight members of the General Assembly (four from each party) and eight “independent” citizens will be set up. Six of the eight Republicans and Democrats must approve the plan for it to pass. If the commission fails, the process is passed to the Virginia Supreme Court—therein lies the rub.

            If the Supreme Court will introduce false evidence in its decision involving the Tech massacre, denying two grieving families justice, does anyone believe the court will handle gerrymandering fairly?

            I vote “no."