Republicans alone who gave us George Santos; judge and facial covering

Republicans alone gave us Santos

John Faso’s op-ed “Democratic redistricting led to Santos” [Opinion, Nov. 7] implausibly tries to blame Democrats for Rep. George Santos, the now-indicted Republican fraudster whom the Republican Party still protects and refuses to expel from Congress.

Faso’s hyper-partisan flight of fancy ignores the facts. He claims the Democratic State Legislature’s 3rd Congressional District map was so favorable to Democrats that “credible” Republican candidates didn’t bother challenging Santos for the nomination.

But Republicans had ample time to anticipate invalidation of those maps and enter the race against Santos. By February 2022, Republicans had challenged the maps in court. The next month, they secured a lower court ruling tossing them. The state Court of Appeals sealed their victory a month later. Congressional primaries weren’t held until Aug. 23 — four months later.

Santos’ win had nothing to do with Democratic redistricting. The GOP simply failed to vet Santos and expose his clownish fraud. Republicans have only themselves — and voters have only Republicans — to blame for Santos.

Faso wants to pass off the Republicans’ effort to thwart independent redistricting under the constitutionally mandated process as a high-minded crusade against partisan gerrymandering. It isn’t. New Yorkers have a constitutional right to redistricting under the Independent Redistricting Commission-based process they adopted. Republicans should respect it.

 — P. Benjamin Duke,  Oyster Bay

The writer, co-chair of the New York Democratic Lawyers Council, filed a brief in the redistricting case.

It is the responsibility of a political party to vet its own candidate, regardless of redistricting. Rep. George Santos was the Republican candidate in the 2022 election; therefore, he represents the party.

Even if he did “squeak into Congress” as a result of newly redrawn lines, why was he allowed to run in 2020 as a Republican when there was no gerrymandering? John Faso claims there was no time to put up another candidate, but surely there was plenty of time in 2020 to discover Santos’ fictitious background.

 — Thomas Zatorski, Commack

The failure to expel the renowned grifter Rep. George Santos is a travesty [“Santos survives expulsion vote,” News, Nov. 2]. It represents the ultimate embarrassment for our non-functional Congress.

Many of the members who opposed the resolution cited due process. Due process for a man who admitted to fabricating his resume? What precedent does this set for future congressional candidates? With the advent of artificial intelligence, can you imagine the superlative resumes that can be created for future candidates?

Once elected, based on their spectacularly fraudulent qualifications, these candidates will be “entitled” to serve their full term until they receive “due process.” They only need to turn to the Santos precedent for justification of their “due process” rights.

I fully support the important concept of due process. However, does an admission of fraudulent actions by a member of Congress negate due process? Don’t you think Congress would benefit from some higher standards?

Meanwhile, this grifter is enjoying a good ol’ time in Washington.

 — Bruce Miller, New Hyde Park

It is deplorable that Rep. George Santos, an admitted liar and fraud, is still in the House of Representatives. New House Speaker Mike Johnson apparently has sold his soul to the devil because he is afraid of losing one House Republican. Has it dawned on him that a Republican might replace Santos? Santos makes $174,00 a year of our taxpayer money. Is it any wonder that most Americans don’t trust politicians?

 — Wayne Mortak, West Babylon

Judge acted correctly about facial covering

Isma Chaudhry claimed the reason that acting state Supreme Court Justice Philippe Solages wanted her facial covering removed for identity purposes was “Islamophobic” [“Nassau judge facing investigation,” News, Nov. 10]. Chaudhry said, “There is no other word for it.”

I say that security and safety was the reason. I think the judge was within his authority to verify who is testifying to avoid having her guilty plea overturned if someone claims she wasn’t the person in court.

Could it have been handled differently? Maybe she could have been taken to another room to be verified or a family member could back her up.

We are a nation of laws, and we have to follow these laws, like it or not.

 — Michael Appice, Westbury  

I emphatically support acting state Supreme Court Justice Philippe Solages. His actions were entirely appropriate in order to confirm the identity of a criminal defendant appearing before him.

We enjoy freedom of religion as a personal right in this country. We have no right to impose our personal beliefs or practices on others.

When someone steps into a U.S. courtroom, they enter into one of the most respected systems of justice in the world. Long-standing practices and standards should be applicable to everyone.

 — Lorraine Hannon, Rockville Centre