To the editor:

The disturbingly vague allegations of misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh suddenly came into focus as the alleged victim revealed her identity and prurient details. As of this writing (Sept. 16), there is a basis for thoroughly investigating these charges and a clear moral obligation to do so.

Already talking heads are asking “Why now?” Politics or duty? Possible political motivations of the accuser are irrelevant. We now have the duty to discover the facts before confirming a lifetime appointment for a candidate accused of two crimes — underage drinking may have contributed to the much more serious alleged felony.

Remember “Nannygate” from 1993? Zoë Baird’s nomination as attorney general was derailed by revelations that she had employed undocumented immigrants and also failed to pay their Social Security taxes. A month later, Kimba Wood’s muted nomination as federal judge was withdrawn because she had employed an undocumented nanny, although it was legal at the time and she had paid the tax. It became clear that such practices were common among the affluent and career oriented, but “the curse of Nannygate” (Times of London, 2004) haunted politicians for years, from Baird to Linda Chavez (secretary of labor nominee, 2001) to Meg Whitman (would-be governor of California, 2010). Surely our society and our politicians have not since become so jaded that we can’t pause to seriously examine these alarming allegations before rushing through a nomination to a permanent position at the pinnacle of our justice system.

Paul Enos,

Lawrence,