To the Editor:
Re “We’re All of the sudden Residing in a ‘My Spouse Did It’ Second,” by Gail Collins and Bret Stephens (The Dialog, Could 21):
Mr. Stephens goes on at size about why Justice Samuel Alito’s spouse has “the constitutional proper” to specific a “Cease the Steal” opinion by hanging a flag upside-down within the Alitos’ entrance yard, in addition to “an ethical proper” to specific her opinion independently of her Supreme Court docket justice husband.
Then, when Ms. Collins challenges the propriety of a political image on the house of a justice who may sometime need to determine on that very election’s validity, Mr. Stephens demurs with a light “OK.”
Mr. Stephens’s argument is deeply disturbing. Our Supreme Court docket justices are anticipated to take care of not simply the fact of no conflicts of curiosity that may affect their rulings, but additionally the “look” of no such conflicts.
To neighbors and now the nation, the flag made it seem that Justice Alito believes Donald Trump’s lies a couple of stolen election, and thus would rule in favor of Mr. Trump in associated instances. Blaming his spouse makes a sham of his personal duty to not seem political.
No, a partner could not specific views in public {that a} justice is prevented from expressing. Had been that to be the case, all justices might encourage their spouses to broadcast opinions the justice is barred from saying. That approach lies insanity.
James Berkman
Boston
To the Editor:
Re “A Time-Honored Political Tactic: Throw Your Spouse Underneath the Bus” (entrance web page, Could 20):
Justice Samuel Alito mentioned he had “no involvement in anyway within the flying of the flag” supporting “the Massive Lie,” blaming it on his spouse.
Does he reside together with his spouse? Does he go to and from work and run errands? Did he see the “Cease the Steal” flag supporting “the Massive Lie” flying proper by his driveway? After all he did! He’s a minimum of as complicit as his spouse.
Justice Alito is flaunting his contempt for ethics and propriety, and one might conclude that he additionally subscribes to the “Massive Lie.” After all Justice Alito ought to recuse himself from any choices involving Donald Trump or the presidency. Or higher, he ought to resign.
Peter Larson
Milwaukee
To the Editor:
Re “There’s No Sense of Disgrace on the Supreme Court docket,” by Jesse Wegman (Opinion, Could 22):
Mr. Wegman claims that federal recusal legislation requires Justice Samuel Alito to disqualify himself as a result of he didn’t take down an inverted flag that his spouse hung since his “impartiality may fairly be questioned.”
But everyone knows that the late nice Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn’t disqualify herself from instances involving Donald Trump after calling him a “faker,” though her impartiality could possibly be questioned.
Michael J. Broyde
Atlanta
The author is a professor at Emory College College of Legislation.
To the Editor:
Vital commentary on the wives of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas is definitely effectively justified. However the criticism can’t cease with them. Justice could also be blind, however absolutely the justices themselves can’t declare to have been blind to their wives’ actions or to counsel that they’d no capability to restrain them.
Neither is feminist independence related: The identical crucial for restraint would apply equally to the husbands of our feminine justices.
Douglas M. Parker
Ojai, Calif.
An Originalist Method to the Taco Court docket Case
To the Editor:
Re “Is a Taco a Sandwich? No. Sure. Even the Legislation Is Divided on It,” by Tejal Rao (Critic’s Pocket book, entrance web page, Could 21):
I savored the article concerning the sandwich vs. taco feud in Fort Wayne, Ind. And I concur that the taco is basically sui generis. However the author missed a scrumptious alternative to expound upon an originalist strategy to this case, by which a restaurateur sought to open a taco store in a shopping center the place solely sandwich outlets had been permitted.
One of many first written mentions of the sandwich is believed to be within the journal of the English historian Edward Gibbon. In line with the Oxford English Dictionary, “sandwich” implies two slices of bread between which a savory meat of some type was positioned. Against this the taco’s basis is a round tortilla with no prime or backside, thereby presenting a authorized conundrum.
But when we study the story concerning the origin of the sandwich — to offer nourishment whereas the Earl of Sandwich sat hour after hour on the playing tables — I consider the case was appropriately determined {that a} taco is certainly a sandwich. Offering a quick chew whereas dazed by mall purchasing is unquestionably akin to that authentic goal.
Lois R. Fishman
Washington
The author is a lawyer.
To the Editor:
The ruling by an Indiana choose {that a} taco is a sandwich dropped at thoughts an 1893 case that reached the very best court docket within the land. (That’s judicial court docket, not meals court docket.)
In Nix v. Hedden the Supreme Court docket confronted the query whether or not beneath U.S. import and tariff legal guidelines a tomato was a fruit or a vegetable. Though acknowledging that botanically the tomato is a fruit, the court docket dominated unanimously that in frequent utilization, a tomato is a vegetable.
“Botanically talking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, simply as are cucumbers, squashes, beans and peas. However within the frequent language of the individuals, whether or not sellers or customers of provisions, all these are greens.”
Lawrence P. Katzenstein
St. Louis
The author is a lawyer.
Republicans Deny Advantages
To the Editor:
Re “Home Defunds L.G.B.T.Q. Facilities by Banning Earmarks for Nonprofits” (information article, Could 15):
As soon as once more, Republicans and so-called conservatives are prepared to disclaim advantages for their very own constituents with a view to deny advantages to teams they disapprove of.
They might moderately not enable federal funds for Y.M.C.A. or Y.W.C.A. branches, meals banks, Boys and Women Golf equipment, or work power coaching, amongst different teams which have obtained earmarks previously, just because they don’t wish to additionally enable any federal funds to go to teams supporting L.G.B.T.Q. individuals.
It’s shameful past perception.
Sonia Jaffe Robbins
New York
Equinox or Fairness?
To the Editor:
Re “May Equinox’s New $40,000 Membership Actually Assist You Stay Longer?” (Properly, nytimes.com, Could 7):
Healthspan — that’s, having a more healthy, not simply longer, life — is an important purpose to pursue. Most individuals wish to obtain good well being and to maintain it so long as potential. What’s disappointing concerning the article is its disregard of the ever-widening hole to realize good well being between the common American and people with the means to afford a $40,000 fitness center membership.
For the common American, the hole in years between healthspan (wholesome years of life) and lifespan (complete years lived) is 9 years, and it’s even bigger for Black and Latinx People with persistent illness burdens. As a society, we are able to spend money on extra equitable prevention and tackle social determinants of well being so that every one of us have a greater likelihood at extra high quality years of life. That is good for everybody — on the fitness center or not.
Ann Kurth
New York
The author is the president of the New York Academy of Medication.
