To the editor:
Regarding “Divided court suggests partial immunity for former president” (April 26 front page):
Perhaps not surprisingly, the Supreme Court's conservative justices, judging by the questions and comments they made during arguments, are paving the way for the end of our democracy. It is clear that there are.
These justices leave no doubt that they disagree with lower courts and find that Donald Trump enjoys at least some immunity from criminal prosecution for his actions while president. right.
Additionally, he directed an investigation into whether the charges brought against Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith related to official or private conduct, and ordered the case to be reviewed. It is clear that the case should be remanded to the trial court. This would prevent a trial in the case from being held before the November election.
What is surprising is the woefully insufficient response of the liberal justices and the missed opportunity for the special counsel to make a more persuasive and passionate case for the effort to overturn the 2020 election.
The consequences of this impending miscarriage of justice make it more likely that Mr. Trump will return to power, and that he will use that opportunity to completely destroy our democracy and the rule of law.
gerald harris
new york
The author is a former New York City criminal court judge.
To the editor:
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s argument supporting former President Donald Trump on the issue of presidential immunity defies logic.
“In a stable democratic society, candidates who lose an election are expected to step down peacefully, even if it is a close or hard-fought election,'' he said, raising the possibility of criminal prosecution. He added that this would be less likely. “Wouldn't that lead to a vicious cycle that would destabilize our country's functioning as a democracy?” he asked.
Justice Alito puts it the other way around. On the contrary, if a president loses an election and refuses to step down peacefully, nothing could be a greater deterrent than the possibility of criminal prosecution. The argument that limiting the criminal liability of a president who illegally refuses to step down will somehow strengthen democracy is a fool's errand.
michael silk
Laguna Woods, California
To the editor:
This is an obvious irony. Donald Trump's lawyers claim the president needs “absolute immunity” for everything he did while in office. This is to prevent future frivolous and politically motivated prosecutions.
which one that's right As Trump has said many times, these are the kinds of charges he would bring against his current political opponents (if elected).
Stanford M. Singer
new york
To the editor:
The basis of judicial legitimacy is that federal courts decide only the cases and controversies at hand, rather than elected officials who establish broader policy.
Nevertheless, in the Trump case before the Supreme Court, the Republican-appointed justices said their role was not only to decide the case before them, but also to criticize the former president about certain actions by the president. They are acting as if their task is to make a broader decision than just deciding whether there is immunity. We arrive at the issue of presidential powers and immunities.
The Times quoted Justice Neil M. Gorsuch as saying, “We are writing rules that will stand the test of time.” It is not the Roberts court's role to create such long-standing rules.
Robert A. Jablon
Washington
The author is a lawyer.
To the editor:
I am very disappointed in the recent debate in the Supreme Court regarding presidential immunity and the questions and trends of some of the justices.
If the president is above the law, why do we need White House advisers to advise him?
If the president is above the law, what is the difference between a president and a king?
If the president is above the law, could current president Joe Biden steal the 2024 election?
We all need boundaries, standards, and laws to live in a civilized democracy. Including the president.
robin watts
new york
Celebrating 'major' decision for Alaska
To the editor:
Regarding “Biden Blocks Drilling in Vast Area of Alaska” (front page, April 20):
Last Friday, the Biden administration announced its decision to deny permits for the 211-mile Ambler Access Project, a proposed road to mine copper in Alaska's central Brooks Range. For us, as a group of residents in northwest Alaska, this decision was momentous. We gathered that day for an impromptu celebration.
This decision not only protects vast tracts of some of the most pristine land left in the modern world, but also stands alongside indigenous peoples in their fight to protect the homelands they have cherished and stewarded for thousands of years. Become. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland heard and understood their voices, and it was a courageous decision to resist the forces of development that have marched relentlessly across much of the continent.
Guests at last week's rally were members of Protect the Kobuku. We are a young, diverse, grassroots group born in the Arctic Circle of northwest Alaska to give voice to local opposition to this road.
Nearly 700 local residents (the majority of them Inupiat) participated in our activities, which is a significant number for a remote and sparsely populated region. We are all motivated by an enduring connection to the cultural, spiritual and environmental values of the Kobuku River.
I am deeply grateful to the Biden Administration, and especially Secretary Haaland, for taking a strong stand to protect the places and way of life we hold dear.
Susan Georgette
carmen schaefer monigold
Kotzebue, Alaska
About Ralph Nader, RFK Jr. and Third Parties
These leaders are once again sacrificing their normal support for civil liberties and succumbing to a two-party duopoly that seeks to exclude other voices from the ballot paper.
My advice to these excluders is to run against candidates they don't like on the merits of the issues. Instead, they seek to deny candidates their First Amendment rights to speech, assembly, and petition, as well as the options they offer voters. Ironically, their narrative about Kennedy's position claims more support from wavering voters for Donald Trump than for President Biden.
For years, these groups have voiced concerns by supporting ranked-choice voting (instant run-off voting) and interstate compacts that expand state laws that allocate Electoral College votes to presidential candidates who win the national popular vote. could have pursued the pro-democracy objective of appeasing the situation. .
Self-proclaimed progressives shouldn't tell candidates they dislike to drop out and shut up. Rather, they should exercise their First Amendment rights, object in elections and public forums, and dispel more voters from voting. That's what true believers in democracy do.
ralph nader
Washington
