To the Editor:
Re “Will the Justices Hold Presidents to Account?,” by Jesse Wegman (Opinion, April 29):
For someone like me who has been practicing law for more than 60 years, it is depressing to see the Supreme Court floundering around in the weeds of far-fetched hypotheticals, instead of following a basic rule of jurisprudence: Decide the case before you.
When litigants bring their dispute before a court for resolution, their expectation is that the court will reach a decision based on the facts in their case, not on some hypotheticals bearing scant relevance to their situation.
The indictment against Donald Trump includes detailed allegations about his actions in trying to remain in the presidency. Those are the only allegations that the court should be considering in a narrow opinion determining if Mr. Trump has immunity.
In more than 200 years with 44 presidents preceding Mr. Trump, he is the only one ever accused of criminal behavior. Does it even make sense for the court to be so fixated on the next rogue president?
Raphael G. Jacobs
New York
To the Editor:
As a teacher of high school English, I have read many erudite essays of literary analysis that received a grade of F. Those essays were “puff and smoke,” well-written diversions that did not answer the assigned question.
During the Supreme Court’s oral arguments, the question was straightforward: Does former President Donald Trump have immunity from prosecution for his acts to overturn the 2020 election?
The justices obfuscated with comments, questions and hypotheticals. Although well spoken, these diversions did not directly address the question under consideration.
So, too, would I give each of their performances the grade of F.
Carol Harrington
Yorktown Heights, N.Y.
To the Editor:
Re “Court Focuses on Private vs. Official Acts in Election Case” (news article, April 27):
The conservative Supreme Court justices’ fascination with distinguishing official from private acts regarding presidential immunity is a red herring whose only purpose is to sow confusion, waste time and push the Jan. 6 trial past November.
Any presidential act, whether official or private, should indeed be subject to prosecution if undertaken for criminally illegal ends. The rule of law is what matters. All of us must follow the law in our democracy; the president more than anyone should be no exception.
It seems clear that David Pecker isn’t the only one running a “catch and kill” scheme for Donald Trump.
Robert C. Vogt
Ann Arbor, Mich.
To the Editor:
Re “Some Justices Look Beyond Facts of Case,” by Adam Liptak (news analysis, front page, April 27):
Chief Justice John Roberts, during his Senate confirmation hearing, likened the role of a judge to calling balls and strikes. That means deciding cases based on the facts actually before the court.
But some questioning by the justices during the oral arguments on the immunity case sounded less like an umpire focused on calling actual balls and strikes and more like someone musing about balls and strikes in past or future games.
At the core of the immunity case is that most fundamental of principles that no one, not even a president, is above the law. Upholding that principle requires judicial decision making that keeps its eye on the ball.
King Poor
Winnetka, Ill.
The writer is a lawyer.
To the Editor:
When they decide cases like Citizens United or Dobbs, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court claim that “originalism” or “textualism” must override any consideration of the practical consequences of their decisions. Their judicial philosophy insists that they must follow what they see as what the founders “intended.”
Now, in the immunity case, they are ignoring the lack of constitutional text or any other founding documentation and focusing entirely on some hypothetical, never before seen, possible future practical consequences. This is an inexcusable, indeed repulsive, display of blatant hypocrisy — and, alas, not the only one.
This court has already severely damaged its own credibility. Let’s hope it doesn’t irreparably damage our democracy.
Gail Goldey
Santa Fe, N.M.
Differing Perspectives on the Campus Protests
To the Editor:
Re “On Campus at Columbia, in 1968 and Now,” by Serge Schmemann (Opinion, April 30):
With all due respect to Mr. Schmemann, I disagree profoundly with his assertion that protest is an essential part of education. His statement that “a disproportionate number of those who rose up at Columbia in 1968 went into social service of some sort” says nothing about causality, and may simply confirm that people who like to do good things also like to demonstrate for things they believe in.
To the contrary, demonstrations almost invariably are inimical to education and the general purposes of education. They are polemical rather than discursive; they are confrontational rather than cohesive. They represent hubris and a closed mind, and promote opposition rather than conversion. If these things are the result of demonstrations, they hinder education rather than advance it.
If the purpose of demonstrations is not to educate, but to call attention to discrimination, injustice, unwise policies or actions, or other things that need attention, and if done in a nonviolent manner, then there is certainly a point to them. But demonstrate where it may do some good, in front of legislative or culpable business institutions. Leave educational institutions free to educate.
Robert H. Palmer
New York
To the Editor:
Media avidly cover campus demonstrations, while politicians and big donors rail against naïve student demonstrators. But the students are not wrong, and many commentators miss the point: The current outrage is not what’s happening on university campuses, it’s what’s happening in Gaza.
That is still going on, every day, every hour, without a visible solution. Incredibly, things could get even worse, and students are to be commended for caring.
Ted Tsomides
Raleigh, N.C.
Children Value Trees as Animal Habitats
To the Editor:
Re “America’s Urban Forests Deserve Protection,” by Margaret Renkl (Opinion guest essay, April 28):
Thanks to Ms. Renkl for a beautiful, heartfelt piece on the need to protect mature trees in urban and suburban settings. She laments the casual way modern adults remove older trees and calls attention to the various benefits they provide, including habitats for birds and other wildlife.
I would like to add that children commonly value mature trees as animal habitats — as we can see, for instance, in their spontaneous drawings. I wish that adults shared this sensitivity to other species.
William Crain
Poughquag, N.Y.
The writer is the author of “Animal Stories: Lives at a Farm Sanctuary.”