To the Editor:
Re “States Must Keep Trump on Ballot, Justices Rule 9-0” (front page, March 5):
Despite the stunning clarity of the 14th Amendment and the well-documented historical record of its intent, the votes of the three Trump-appointed justices and that of Justice Clarence Thomas to allow an insurrectionist to remain on the ballot were a foregone conclusion.
The only surprise was the unanimous vote.
Daniel Fink
Beverly Hills, Calif.
To the Editor:
The Supreme Court has decided that an individual state cannot decide who can be on the ballot for a federal election. That would seem to be a reasonable decision, but perhaps a more significant question is whether individual states may adopt their own criteria for who can vote in federal elections.
Selective restrictions have already been enacted in many states that will certainly affect the upcoming election. How can this patchwork system be permitted in light of this decision?
John T. Dillon
West Caldwell, N.J.
To the Editor:
The Supreme Court’s decision to allow Donald Trump to remain on the ballot in Colorado relied in significant part on the potential for hypothetical chaos if each state could make its own determination about the eligibility of a presidential candidate. In doing so, it ignored the real chaos that occurred on Jan. 6, 2021, the same chaos that led the Colorado Supreme Court to order Mr. Trump excluded from the ballot because of his role in the events of that day.
Unlike the members of the court, the rest of us don’t live in a hypothetical world. The court’s decision made our world a little less safe from those who are willing to use violence to take or stay in power — actual violence, the kind that gets people hurt or killed.
Mitchell Turker
Portland, Ore.
To the Editor:
The holding by the Supreme Court that Congress and not the states has the power to keep a candidate for federal office off the ballot, and that power can only be exercised pursuant to legislation enacted by Congress, means that, as the law now stands, the only remedy barring an oath-breaking insurrectionist from running for president again is impeachment followed by conviction by a two-thirds vote of the Senate.
That result was expected and not particularly controversial.
The real test of the court’s integrity and independence will come next month when it hears arguments and ultimately must decide whether a former president has complete immunity from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
By unduly delaying resolution of this issue, the court has already injudiciously advantaged Donald Trump, possibly insulating him from ever being held accountable for his unlawful attempt to seize power.
Still, how the court rules will demonstrate whether the majority of justices are jurists or politicians in robes.
Gerald Harris
New York
The writer is a retired New York City Criminal Court judge.
To the Editor:
While I was somewhat disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision to allow Donald Trump on the ballot in Colorado, I was relieved to see that it was a unanimous decision.
The decision on immunity must also be unanimous for the country to accept it, as I hope the decision on Colorado will be accepted.
David Simpson
Rindge, N.H.
America’s Abysmal Treatment of Child Care Workers
To the Editor:
Re “The Business of Child Care Is Back on the Brink” (front page, Feb. 27):
The idea that we as a country have only supported our child care workers as a stopgap measure during Covid is abysmal, but not surprising to me. I’ve worked as a nanny or child care provider in multiple different capacities for the past five years, and the level of respect this work garners is minimal — despite its necessity for a functioning society.
The widening gap between the expenses of early childhood education providers and the tuition parents are able to afford cannot continue to be addressed through the tug of war of free market forces, ultimately falling on the shoulders of overextended women.
Rebecca Davis’s experience of taking home $2 an hour as a child care provider after paying expenses hits home for me. I often feel pressured to make it all happen for my kids and be satisfied with whatever compensation I get.
Don’t get me wrong: I love the children I work with and am tirelessly working to give them the best shot at secure attachment and happiness, but I shouldn’t be expected to subsidize their well-being with my own.
America needs support for child care, and we need it now. Universal pre-K and government-supported child care could have huge benefits for everyone: employers, child care providers, parents and, most importantly, our children. America needs to reckon with the crushing weight of child care before it crushes us all.
Bijou Acers
Minneapolis
Save the Sommeliers
To the Editor:
Re “The Twilight of the American Sommelier,” by Eric Asimov (The Pour column, Food, Feb. 21):
Sommeliers are on the front line of a very complex network of wineries, importers, distributors and the wine-drinking public. In the last 20 years the importance of sommeliers and their influence on the wine trade have grown considerably.
Before this it was, with few exceptions, the wine critics who held sway over restaurant lists, retail selections and, therefore, consumer preferences. And who were they? Mostly white, mostly men, assigning numerical scores like grades in school, to the wines they liked or didn’t like. Or worse, they simply ignored certain wines or regions as being unworthy of their attention.
It was sommeliers who first championed natural wine, wines without added chemicals. It is sommeliers who promote lesser known regions and provide an audience for small, often just starting out winemakers from Croatia to California.
Do sommeliers matter anymore? You may as well ask, does wine matter anymore? In a world of global political and ecological crisis, I say, more than ever. Wine and the wine trade bring together diverse voices and cultures. It is a profession open to women and minorities — as long as you know your stuff.
The language of wine, like music, is universal. Restaurants give up sommeliers at a real cost not only to their own bottom lines but also to the diversity of opinion and taste so necessary to sustain a vibrant culture.
David Bowler
New York
The writer is C.E.O. of Bowler Wine, a distributor and importer.
Evicting the Maasai From Their Lands
To the Editor:
Re “Kicking Native People Off Their Land Is an Awful Way to Save the Planet,” by Robert Williams (Opinion guest essay, Feb. 24):
The ongoing oppression of the Maasai by the Tanzanian government must stop.
As pastoralists, the Maasai must have land to graze their cattle. It’s been their way of life dating back about 10,000 years. Taking away their lands would also take away their way of life and their livelihood.
Government leaders should work with the Maasai community to find a way to honor and respect their ancestral traditions and culture instead of working against them. According to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, “Indigenous people shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation.”
The Tanzanian government’s horrific, excessive use of violence to forcibly evict the Maasai from their lands should immediately and permanently cease.
Carol Fatoullah
Floral Park, N.Y.