To the Editor:
Re “We’re Suddenly Living in a ‘My Wife Did It’ Moment,” by Gail Collins and Bret Stephens (The Conversation, May 21):
Mr. Stephens goes on at length about why Justice Samuel Alito’s wife has “the constitutional right” to express a “Stop the Steal” opinion by hanging a flag upside-down in the Alitos’ front yard, as well as “a moral right” to express her opinion independently of her Supreme Court justice husband.
Then, when Ms. Collins challenges the propriety of a political symbol at the home of a justice who might someday have to decide on that very election’s validity, Mr. Stephens demurs with a mild “OK.”
Mr. Stephens’s argument is deeply disturbing. Our Supreme Court justices are expected to maintain not just the reality of no conflicts of interest that might influence their rulings, but also the “appearance” of no such conflicts.
To neighbors and now the nation, the flag made it appear that Justice Alito believes Donald Trump’s lies about a stolen election, and thus would rule in favor of Mr. Trump in related cases. Blaming his wife makes a sham of his own responsibility not to appear political.
No, a spouse may not express views in public that a justice is prevented from expressing. Were that to be the case, all justices could encourage their spouses to broadcast opinions the justice is barred from saying. That way lies madness.
James Berkman
Boston
To the Editor:
Re “A Time-Honored Political Tactic: Throw Your Wife Under the Bus” (front page, May 20):
Justice Samuel Alito said he had “no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag” supporting “the Big Lie,” blaming it on his wife.
Does he live with his wife? Does he go to and from work and run errands? Did he see the “Stop the Steal” flag supporting “the Big Lie” flying right by his driveway? Of course he did! He is at least as complicit as his wife.
Justice Alito is flaunting his contempt for ethics and propriety, and one could conclude that he also subscribes to the “Big Lie.” Of course Justice Alito should recuse himself from any decisions involving Donald Trump or the presidency. Or better, he should resign.
Peter Larson
Milwaukee
To the Editor:
Re “There’s No Sense of Shame at the Supreme Court,” by Jesse Wegman (Opinion, May 22):
Mr. Wegman claims that federal recusal law requires Justice Samuel Alito to disqualify himself because he did not take down an inverted flag that his wife hung since his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Yet we all know that the late great Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not disqualify herself from cases involving Donald Trump after calling him a “faker,” even though her impartiality could be questioned.
Michael J. Broyde
Atlanta
The writer is a professor at Emory University School of Law.
To the Editor:
Critical commentary on the wives of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas is surely well justified. But the criticism cannot stop with them. Justice may be blind, but surely the justices themselves cannot claim to have been blind to their wives’ activities or to suggest that they had no capacity to restrain them.
Nor is feminist independence relevant: The same imperative for restraint would apply equally to the husbands of our female justices.
Douglas M. Parker
Ojai, Calif.
An Originalist Approach to the Taco Court Case
To the Editor:
Re “Is a Taco a Sandwich? No. Yes. Even the Law Is Divided on It,” by Tejal Rao (Critic’s Notebook, front page, May 21):
I savored the article about the sandwich vs. taco feud in Fort Wayne, Ind. And I concur that the taco is really sui generis. But the writer missed a delicious opportunity to expound upon an originalist approach to this case, in which a restaurateur sought to open a taco shop in a shopping mall where only sandwich shops were permitted.
One of the first written mentions of the sandwich is believed to be in the journal of the English historian Edward Gibbon. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “sandwich” implies two slices of bread between which a savory meat of some sort was placed. By contrast the taco’s foundation is a circular tortilla with no top or bottom, thereby presenting a legal conundrum.
But if we examine the story about the origin of the sandwich — to provide nourishment while the Earl of Sandwich sat hour after hour at the gambling tables — I believe the case was correctly decided that a taco is indeed a sandwich. Providing a fast bite while dazed by mall shopping is definitely akin to that original purpose.
Lois R. Fishman
Washington
The writer is a lawyer.
To the Editor:
The ruling by an Indiana judge that a taco is a sandwich brought to mind an 1893 case that reached the highest court in the land. (That’s judicial court, not food court.)
In Nix v. Hedden the Supreme Court faced the question whether under U.S. import and tariff laws a tomato was a fruit or a vegetable. Although acknowledging that botanically the tomato is a fruit, the court ruled unanimously that in common usage, a tomato is a vegetable.
“Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans and peas. But in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables.”
Lawrence P. Katzenstein
St. Louis
The writer is a lawyer.
Republicans Deny Benefits
To the Editor:
Re “House Defunds L.G.B.T.Q. Centers by Banning Earmarks for Nonprofits” (news article, May 15):
Once again, Republicans and so-called conservatives are willing to deny benefits for their own constituents in order to deny benefits to groups they disapprove of.
They would rather not allow federal funds for Y.M.C.A. or Y.W.C.A. branches, food banks, Boys and Girls Clubs, or work force training, among other groups that have received earmarks in the past, simply because they don’t want to also allow any federal funds to go to groups supporting L.G.B.T.Q. people.
It is shameful beyond belief.
Sonia Jaffe Robbins
New York
Equinox or Equity?
To the Editor:
Re “Could Equinox’s New $40,000 Membership Really Help You Live Longer?” (Well, nytimes.com, May 7):
Healthspan — that is, having a healthier, not just longer, life — is a crucial goal to pursue. Most people want to achieve good health and to sustain it as long as possible. What is disappointing about the article is its disregard of the ever-widening gap to achieve good health between the average American and those with the means to afford a $40,000 gym membership.
For the average American, the gap in years between healthspan (healthy years of life) and lifespan (total years lived) is nine years, and it is even larger for Black and Latinx Americans with chronic disease burdens. As a society, we can invest in more equitable prevention and address social determinants of health so that all of us have a better chance at more quality years of life. This is good for everyone — at the gym or not.
Ann Kurth
New York
The writer is the president of the New York Academy of Medicine.