To the Editor:
Re “Justices Give Trump Substantial Immunity” (entrance web page, July 2):
So it seems that Richard Nixon was proper in any case: When the president does it, it’s authorized.
As a substitute of telling Donald Trump that he had no garments on, the Supreme Court docket 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’ll discuss with this ruling because the Dred Scott case of the twenty first century.
God save us, and God save america.
Jay N. Feldman
Port Washington, N.Y.
The author is a lawyer.
To the Editor:
Fascinating, or hypocritical, how the so-called originalist Supreme Court docket justices dreamed up new immunities for Donald Trump which are nowhere talked about in and even implied by the unique textual content of the Structure.
Certainly, broadening of govt immunity is radically antithetical to the Structure’s goal, 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 Court docket is that it has turn into lawless. It’s now above the legislation.
Ideology and never reasoned authorized evaluation has turn into the driving power of the best courtroom within the land.
It isn’t potential that nearly each case with widespread social and cultural implications is set alongside conservative versus liberal strains except the legislation and rules of stare decisis have been changed by knee-jerk allegiances to a selected political social gathering and its core ideology.
I now imagine that the members of the conservative majority of the Court docket 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 at the least some silver lining within the Supreme Court docket ruling. One could also be that it’ll 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 Court docket or others on the problem of intent. I’d not need to have a president hamstrung by the priority that he may very well be prosecuted for an error or poor judgment. Alternatively, felony intent in official selections can’t be given a cross. 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 mentioned, “If slavery isn’t mistaken, nothing is mistaken.” I’d 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 Court docket majority has reversed the outcomes of our Revolutionary Struggle. The Tories have gained. Donald Trump and people who observe him shall be our kings.
Joyful Fourth.
H. Winet
Berkeley, Calif.
A Ruling Supporting Corruption
To the Editor:
Re “Justices Rule Federal Corruption Law Allows Gifts to State and Local Officials” (information article, June 27):
I feel the Supreme Court docket majority has proclaimed its assist for nearly 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 legislation 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 actual fact is totally different, a wonderfully wonderful “gratuity” or present for companies rendered. It’s outrageous — a transparently dishonest interpretation that permits the justices to successfully ignore the legislation in query and provides all public officers a free cross and a information to assist them of their graft.
This Supreme Court docket majority has gone to this point off the rails so many instances 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 growth 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 Terms of the Issue” (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 will even see a lower in physicians throughout all specialties within the coming years.
Half of medical students and resident physicians in all specialties are ladies, most of whom are of reproductive age. Aged physicians will proceed to retire, and the data shows that fewer and fewer younger physicians are selecting to construct their careers in locations with abortion bans.
Each affected person in these states will endure — not simply ladies looking for abortions. In the event you stay in an abortion-ban state, anticipate to wrestle for those who want a main care physician, an oncologist, a surgeon — any physician of any sort.
I’m a psychiatry resident and a mom whose household lives in Texas. The punitive abortion legislation is a significant purpose I can’t be transferring to Texas to quiet down after commencement. I can not take the chance that if I’ve problems in a future being pregnant, I must 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 Moves to Require Teaching the Bible in Public Schools” (entrance web page, June 28):
The current rulings in Louisiana and Oklahoma to incorporate non secular texts in public college lecture rooms don’t change the truth that the founders selected to not declare america 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 schooling.
The basic tenet to “make no legislation respecting an institution of faith” ought to prolong to the person states. To depart from it will solely result in additional societal division, relatively than sorely wanted unity.
Victor Caliman
Kings Park, N.Y.
The author is a former trainer and principal.