Opinion editor's note: Published in Star Tribune Opinion letter We hear from readers online and in print every day.Click to contribute here.
•••
The majority of us did not graduate high school with a career in nuclear physics. But most of us learn the rudiments of good citizenship and carry with us from a young age the idea that justice must be clearly partisan.
So it was jarring to see the Supreme Court take up former President Donald Trump's immunity case with the apparent intention of shelving the special counsel's case until after the presidential election.
And one wonders how the Supreme Court can present hypothetical legalism that will affect future presidents when the obvious election interference cases at hand are almost completely ignored. Perhaps the undying respect for the court's status allows it to place a rather sinister “rule of the times” before the obvious dangers at its feet. Perhaps it's time to check out this chunky body from the outside.
The justices of the United States Supreme Court are not infallible. The American people do not seek omniscience or transcendent wisdom. But we require more than just a little conscientious deliberation on our behalf. And when decisions are made by the leaders of America's justice system, we have a right to expect equality, prudence, and honesty from them.
Nothing of the sort was made clear by the majority of the judges in this case. They would do well to remember that the American people are not stupid.
Patricia Raftery, Faribault
•••
It's bad enough that the Supreme Court even considered the possibility of immunity from prosecution for crimes committed by a president while in office, but since then, most conservative justices have decided to do so instead of dealing with actual cases. , actions already taken that focus on hypothetical scenarios of crimes that future presidents would commit. Why they were called. That Donald Trump incited an insurrection. The time has come to change the name of the Supreme Court from the Roberts Court to the Trump Court.
Doug Williams, Robbinsdale
•••
I'm not a lawyer or a judge, nor do I play either on TV, but come on. Did Justice Samuel Alito just argue that immunity is necessary to ensure that a sitting president has a reason to “peacefully retire”? Trump did not leave office peacefully, but this argument suggests that he did so. no immunity. Therefore, there is no need to discuss this matter, right? There is no problem with immunity unless you commit a crime. Our closest parallel, Richard Nixon, actually committed a crime, realized he had no immunity, but still found a way to step down peacefully.
Also, shouldn't judges recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest, or if there is a possibility of a conflict of interest in the case? Judge Clarence Thomas remains involved in the case despite his wife's active involvement in overturning the election. For some reason, people who should know better are failing at their jobs.
Dan Wolfe, Edina
•••
In a recent Supreme Court hearing on President Trump's claim to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, Justice Alito argued that without that shield, the president could engage in retaliation against his predecessor and undermine a “stable democratic society.” He expressed concern that it could cause damage.
The concerns of legal scholars appear to be misplaced. This is because when a president has the unlimited ability to break the law without recourse, the implications for stability and democracy are called into question. The threat is especially great because Trump has vowed to prosecute and imprison the current president and other political and other rivals if elected.
Marshall H. Tanik, Minneapolis
The author is a constitutional lawyer.
Sen.nicole mitchell
One standard for everything please
The article about state Sen. Nicole Mitchell, “Mitchell returns to State Capitol after arrest” (April 30), was difficult to read. I don't support her decision to handle her situation the way she did, but she is entitled to due process.
What really interested me was a comment from Republican Sen. Steve Drakowski. “Her actions brought the Senate into disrepute. Her actions brought the Senate into disrepute.” Honestly, Republicans may need to look in the mirror regarding everything Donald Trump has done. do not have. This makes no sense. Only when it comes to politics and the rule of law, we should have a single standard and a single standard. No one is above the law! This should not mean that it matters to one party but not the other, whether Democratic or Republican. This is the American standard, and it commands the same level of trust, respect, and understanding for everyone.
Our elected officials are role models. Let them fight the battle. But they must follow the law and fight legally when defending the very laws they are enacting.
Joanie Clausen, Golden Valley
•••
“Oh, the irony” response to the letter (Reader's Light, April 30): The author is clearly trying to justify the Republican strategy of stripping votes from Mitchell. The letter writer claims to be putting politics ahead of principles. This from Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and dozens of other Republicans who clearly know better but continue the disgusting act of supporting Trump. I'm a resident of her district and find this whole incident embarrassing to say the least (whatever the motive), but I predict this when we elect her president in 2022. That was impossible. She should take it right from her. It would deprive her constituents of their right to be represented. Parliament follows the rules.
Sharon E. Tones, Woodbury
•••
Should we be surprised that Minnesota Senate Republicans are furious that Mitchell continues to vote? Several Republican and Democratic members of Congress have been arrested for DWI and remain members of Congress.
I would be much more comfortable with a senator who broke into a relative's house to retrieve personal items than a lawmaker who endangers others by driving drunk. Mitchell did not put anyone's life at risk.
Timothy DeJonghe, Garrison, Minnesota
•••
In 2022, Democrats took control of all state government, pledging to enact a unified and moderate “One Minnesota” policy. This was an appealing slogan for voters tired of divisive and unproductive partisan politics.
But once in power, the DFL trifecta quickly abandoned that belief and took a sharp turn toward the progressive left. And that tact includes a persistent disregard for the basics of law and order, the necessary foundations of a functioning self-governing society. And on Monday, Minnesotans saw two powerful photos depicting a horrifying outcome.
At the Hennepin County Government Center, State Trooper Ryan Londregan was taken to a hearing on criminal charges for simply carrying out the dangerous job given to us by the people of Minnesota to protect us. , Opposed” April 30). It's embarrassing.
At the state capitol in St. Paul, DFL Sen. Mitchell, who faces a credible felony theft charge, was invited back to the Senate floor to give his Democratic colleagues the deciding vote on an important and controversial bill. I was warmly welcomed. Shameful.
You don't have to be a lawyer to recognize the grave injustice of these two images. Minnesota has not fared well under one-party rule. Voters here have a chance to change that in November, and we should.
Andy Brehm, St. Paul
