To the Editor:
Re “Justices Give Trump Substantial Immunity” (entrance web page, July 2):
So it seems that Richard Nixon was proper in spite of everything: When the president does it, it’s authorized.
As a substitute of telling Donald Trump that he had no garments on, the Supreme Courtroom has cloaked the previous president and convicted felon with imperial robes. The courtroom has substituted sophistry for authorized evaluation.
In years to return, if historians are nonetheless permitted to observe their craft, they are going to confer with this ruling because the Dred Scott case of the twenty first century.
God save us, and God save the US.
Jay N. Feldman
Port Washington, N.Y.
The author is a lawyer.
To the Editor:
Attention-grabbing, or hypocritical, how the so-called originalist Supreme Courtroom justices dreamed up new immunities for Donald Trump which might be nowhere talked about in and even implied by the unique textual content of the Structure.
Certainly, broadening of government immunity is radically antithetical to the Structure’s function, design and construction: prioritization of actual, significant checks and balances among the many three branches.
William August
Cambridge, Mass.
The author is a lawyer.
To the Editor:
What has occurred to Chief Justice John Roberts?
When and the way did he lose his want to have his courtroom be credible and worthy of respect?
Susan Shelton
Falmouth, Mass.
To the Editor:
My tackle the Supreme Courtroom is that it has change into lawless. It’s now above the regulation.
Ideology and never reasoned authorized evaluation has change into the driving drive of the best courtroom within the land.
It’s not doable that just about each case with widespread social and cultural implications is set alongside conservative versus liberal traces until the regulation and rules of stare decisis have been changed by knee-jerk allegiances to a specific political occasion and its core ideology.
I now imagine that the members of the conservative majority of the Courtroom are intellectually dishonest and have uniformly dishonored their oaths to obey the Structure. They’re finishing up private agendas that don’t have anything to do with established authorized rules or the welfare and well-being of this nation.
That’s scary.
Peter Alkalay
Scarsdale, N.Y.
The author is a lawyer.
To the Editor:
One searches for a minimum of some silver lining within the Supreme Courtroom ruling. One could also be that it’s going to now be far more durable, ought to Donald Trump be elected president in November, for him to set about prosecuting Joe Biden for alleged crimes whereas in workplace.
Richard Cohen
New York
To the Editor:
I’ve seen little or no dialogue from the Supreme Courtroom or others on the difficulty of intent. I might not wish to have a president hamstrung by the priority that he might be prosecuted for an error or poor judgment. However, felony intent in official choices can’t be given a go. And anybody who believes that Donald Trump was not working to subvert the Structure and the peaceable switch of energy is deluded.
Abraham Lincoln as soon as stated, “If slavery just isn’t improper, nothing is improper.” I might paraphrase and apply that to the occasions of Jan. 6, 2021. The courtroom ought to have discovered accordingly.
William F. Carroll Jr.
Dallas
To the Editor:
And not using a shot being fired, the Supreme Courtroom majority has reversed the outcomes of our Revolutionary Conflict. The Tories have gained. Donald Trump and people who observe him can be our kings.
Glad Fourth.
H. Winet
Berkeley, Calif.
A Ruling Supporting Corruption
To the Editor:
Re “Justices Rule Federal Corruption Regulation Permits Items to State and Native Officers” (information article, June 27):
I believe the Supreme Courtroom majority has proclaimed its help for just about any public corruption so long as offenders time their acceptance of a bribe with somewhat finesse. The Snyder case uncovered the ethical chapter and dishonesty of these supposed textualists who overturned a correct conviction in a decrease courtroom regarding the illegality of accepting a bribe.
The federal regulation in query clearly refers to bribes (when an official “corruptly solicits or calls for” or accepts “any factor of worth of $5,000 or extra”) as being unlawful for these in elected workplace to obtain as compensation for actions like improperly steering contracts to some enterprise curiosity.
The courtroom’s majority selected to narrowly outline a bribe as one thing that should come earlier than a corrupt official does one thing to profit them personally, not after the deed is completed. The federal statute makes no such distinction. However the courtroom makes it appear as if paying off the corrupt official after the very fact is completely different, a wonderfully nice “gratuity” or reward for companies rendered. It’s outrageous — a transparently dishonest interpretation that permits the justices to successfully ignore the regulation in query and provides all public officers a free go and a information to help them of their graft.
This Supreme Courtroom majority has gone up to now off the rails so many occasions that it’s insupportable to let the courtroom go on as it’s. We will need to have main reform — time period limits, a agency code of ethics, and enlargement of the courtroom to steadiness the ideological composition and more and more partisan make-up of this present courtroom.
To the Editor:
Re “Realities of Abortion Bans Shift the Phrases of the Difficulty” (entrance web page, June 25):
Many individuals know that states with abortion bans are already dropping OB/GYNs. A lesser-known level is that these states can even see a lower in physicians throughout all specialties within the coming years.
Half of medical college students and resident physicians in all specialties are girls, most of whom are of reproductive age. Aged physicians will proceed to retire, and the knowledge exhibits that fewer and fewer younger physicians are selecting to construct their careers in locations with abortion bans.
Each affected person in these states will undergo — not simply girls looking for abortions. In the event you dwell in an abortion-ban state, count on to wrestle in the event you want a major care physician, an oncologist, a surgeon — any physician of any variety.
I’m a psychiatry resident and a mom whose household lives in Texas. The punitive abortion regulation is a serious purpose I can’t be shifting to Texas to calm down after commencement. I can’t take the danger that if I’ve issues in a future being pregnant, I should danger my life due to political posturing. Lots of my colleagues are making the identical alternative.
Niki Kennedy
Boston
Faith in Public Colleges
To the Editor:
Re “Oklahoma Strikes to Require Educating the Bible in Public Colleges” (entrance web page, June 28):
The current rulings in Louisiana and Oklahoma to incorporate spiritual texts in public college lecture rooms don’t change the truth that the founders selected to not declare the US to be a Christian nation.
Of their knowledge and foresight, they adhered to the precept of the separation of non secular establishments and issues of secular governance, together with training.
The elemental guideline to “make no regulation respecting an institution of faith” ought to lengthen to the person states. To depart from it will solely result in additional societal division, fairly than sorely wanted unity.
Victor Caliman
Kings Park, N.Y.
The author is a former trainer and principal.
