Do I still live in the US? Unbelievable. That was my response to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the president to be granted complete immunity for all “official” actions while in office.
A New York Times article published in the Tribune (“An unusual development in the immunity case,” April 28) quoted Justice Samuel Alito as saying: If the president cannot retire in peace, and if he can face criminal prosecution by his political adversaries, does that not lead us into a vicious cycle that destabilizes our nation's functioning as a democracy? ? ”
I'm more than incredulous and dumbfounded right now.
Although there have been many “hot” elections in our nation's history (e.g., John F. Kennedy vs. Richard Nixon, Thomas Dewey vs. Harry Truman, Al Gore vs. George W. Bush), Donald There was never any destabilization until Trump tried. Challenge election results to maintain your power.
Our nation's stability for more than 248 years has depended on the durable and wise foundations laid by our Founding Fathers. They created his three departments in the government, none of which could have ultimate power. Rather, there will be checks and balances. Could these balances now be erased to allow presidential discretion?
The president is unchecked and has no personal obligation to obey the law. Why would he give that power to the only person in history who has actually tried to destabilize the peaceful transfer of power that is the hallmark of this country?
— Joanne Faruna, Wheaton
The article misunderstands the role of courts.
An April 28 front-page article about Donald Trump's immunity suit in the Supreme Court included the subheading, “Supreme Court's conservative justices appear to be avoiding Trump's actions,” along with the following from a Stanford University law professor: It contained some opinions. This case was a relentless effort by several conservative justices who did not focus on, consider, or even acknowledge the facts of the actual case at hand. ” This article grossly misunderstands how the law works and the role of the Supreme Court.
First of all, no matter what Trump's actions were, there are no facts that the Supreme Court should include on this issue. This is because a trial has not yet been held to determine the facts. Of course, there are allegations, but there are no adjudicated facts of the record that the court can address or consider in the matter at issue.
The reasoning here seems to be something along the lines of, “Didn't the justices read the unproven allegations they should have relied on?” Or you might say, “Don't judges read newspapers or watch TV news?”
Well, I'm sure they do, but whatever they read in the newspapers or see on TV has no role as any evidence in their deliberations on this issue. To do so would be a serious violation of the important due process to which all defendants are entitled.
— Neil Gaffney, Chicago
Voters have a right to know the truth
After hearing the court's arguments regarding Donald Trump, it seems likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will somehow rule that Trump and future presidents are above the law as long as they think it's good for the country. At the very least, if the judge sends the cases back to lower courts, those lawsuits will not be able to proceed before the election.
I think the people of this country have a right to know the truth about what kind of person should be president, what President Trump did or didn't do in front of them.
I no longer know which country I live in. I grew up knowing that no one is above the law, not even the president. That there are limits to your power. We had a government of checks and balances, and no part of the government was above the law. But that seems to be changing soon.
Since I was much younger, Republicans have always sought to limit the power of the president and have always insisted that the courts should follow the original intent of the Founding Fathers in all matters.
Now, that all changed for Trump. Do you really believe that the founding fathers wanted a president with unlimited powers, or that the executive branch has unlimited powers? What happened to checks and balances? What about majority vote? Did it happen? What happened to the people of this country?
Are we really going to abandon our 250-year history as a democracy where no one is above the law? And all of this is for Trump.
— Jeff Carr, Carol Stream
Editorial Board Misses January 6th
I'm confused by the Tribune Editorial Board's “Do you want to immigrate to Canada?” message. Think carefully, Americans,” the April 26 editorial read. “It's best to refrain from calling moving companies.” It sounds like the board doesn't care who wins in November. How does this square with the Editorial Board's “Concede or Resign, President Trump” editorial after the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021? “This was more than just a protest,” the commission wrote at the time. “This was a massive act of insurrection aimed at intimidating democratically elected representatives and invalidating a legitimate election. …It was a horrific attack on the fundamental principles of constitutional government. ” Perfectly stated.
Editorial boards are now mocking Americans who are considering leaving “if the next election doesn't go our way,” apparently forgetting who led the rebellion the last time the election didn't go our way. It is ironic that
No matter what you think of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, he did not lead an effort to “nullify a legitimate election.” Does the editorial board now really think that the man who tried to do just that is fit to be president again?
— Kevin Coughlin, Evanston
“Gomer Pyle'' is more convincing.
On Sunday night, I started watching the CNN documentary “Misinformation: Trump's Followers,” about the blind fanaticism of Donald Trump supporters regarding misinformation, conspiracy theories, and baseless beliefs.
After about 10 minutes, I switched to the rebroadcast channel, “Gomer Pyle, USMC.” It was much more realistic.
— Mike Calcina, Chicago
Consider the insider perspective
General James Mattis, General Mark Milley, John Bolton, Mark Esper, John Kelly, Bill Barr, Cassidy Hutchinson, Anthony Scaramucci, Stephanie Grisham, Sarah Matthews, Alyssa Farrar Griffin, and Mike. – Former Vice President Pence is among the people he worked with. He was a supporter of Donald Trump when he was president, but he later said publicly that he was unfit to be president.
If those who watched him closely realize how deeply flawed this man is and how dangerous he is to our country, I say we must reject him too. Those who blindly follow him and refuse to see him as he really is must remember history. Men and women united in support of Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and others, leading to the downfall of their countries.
President Trump's Project 2025 will only benefit the rich and powerful. He intends to dismantle the Justice Department and the Education Department, bring only conservatives to Washington, and transfer all power to the executive branch. It benefits no one but himself.
This is a cautionary tale, and one that every voter must consider before voting in 2024.
— Marla Cowan, Glenview
Submit a letter of up to 400 words to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
