To the Editor:
Re “Supreme Court Appears Set to Rule That States Can’t Disqualify Trump” (entrance web page, Feb. 9):
Of their arguments, Supreme Courtroom justices expressed considerations concerning the doable penalties of Colorado’s makes an attempt to take away Donald Trump from the poll beneath the 14th Modification. What we didn’t hear was a dialogue of the doable penalties of permitting Mr. Trump to return to workplace.
Maybe these penalties deserve at the least equal consideration, in mild of what the nation skilled on Jan. 6. I consider that’s what the authors of the 14th Modification had in thoughts.
James Culnan
La Crescenta, Calif.
To the Editor:
Chief Justice John Roberts is all of the sudden apprehensive in regards to the penalties of upholding Part 3 of the 14th Modification. The place is his concern for the results of meting out with Roe v. Wade, overruling environmental guidelines, privileging the Second Modification over security and destroying affirmative motion?
One motive that many People have misplaced confidence within the Supreme Courtroom — particularly its conservative majority — is how its insistence on the letter of the legislation relies on the outcomes they search.
Ann Sparanese
Englewood, N.J.
To the Editor:
The 14th Modification particularly prohibits those that have engaged in revolt from serving as “elector of President or Vice-President.” Why would its authors ban insurrectionists from being electors, however permit them to really be president or vice chairman? Clearly they wouldn’t.
Ross Brown
Santa Barbara, Calif.
To the Editor:
It will not be shocking if subsequent week or quickly thereafter we had two unanimous choices by the U.S. Supreme Courtroom, arguably going in several instructions.
From the oral argument on Thursday, it’s actually doable that each liberals and conservatives would conform to overturn the choice of the Colorado Supreme Courtroom taking Donald Trump off the poll, most likely on an strategy primarily based on the idea that this can be a federal query that should be litigated in federal courts. In any other case, there may very well be a multiplicity of conflicting choices.
Alternatively, the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that Mr. Trump didn’t have immunity from prosecution is so clear on the legislation and effectively written that it’s extremely unlikely that the Supreme Courtroom would reverse it. Furthermore, there’s little perception that the court docket might add by issuing its personal opinion. Consequently, it’s extremely unlikely that the Supreme Courtroom would grant certiorari, or that there could be a dissenting opinion.
Two unanimous opinions, one favoring Mr. Trump and one decidedly unfavorable to him, would please Chief Justice John Roberts as a result of it will give him cowl for his assertion that the court docket is above politics.
Charles W. Murdock
Chicago
The author has served as dean of Loyola College Chicago College of Legislation and as deputy lawyer normal for the State of Illinois.
To the Editor:
Re “The Supreme Court Should Get Out of the Insurrection Business” (Opinion visitor essay, nytimes.com, Feb. 7):
Akhil Reed Amar, in arguing for states to determine who can seem as president on the poll beneath the 14th Modification revolt clause, oddly ignores the elephant within the room. If we ignore the fact that the deepest crimson states would probably empower their legislatures to outline and determine who’s an insurrectionist, and provided that many of those states have already demonstrated anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic efforts, this may virtually actually result in lots of them barring Democrats from showing on presidential ballots, casting them as insurrectionist beneath their state’s definition.
With out clear nationwide requirements, we achieve this at nice peril to our democracy.
Mark Bierman
Brooklyn
Partner and Caregiver
To the Editor:
Re “When Spouses Need to Hand Over Care,” by Paula Span (The New Outdated Age, Science Instances, Feb. 6):
Utilizing case research, Ms. Span provides readability and wanted consideration to the ordeals skilled by spouse-caregivers making choices about long-term care for his or her family members with Alzheimer’s.
I used to be a spouse-caregiver for seven years as my husband slowly succumbed to the fog of dementia. My choice to hunt a reminiscence care facility for him got here solely two months earlier than he died.
Because the article factors out, spouse-caregivers additionally have to attend to their very own well being points — worsened by the stresses and anxieties of their state of affairs. Additionally essential are the love, assist and emotional help from instant members of the family when the spouse-caregiver should make these choices about shifting their beloved one. It’s unlucky, certainly devastating, when some members of the family withhold such help.
Patricia Hills
Brooklyn