To the Editor:
Re “Split Court Hints at Some Immunity for Ex-Presidents” (front page, April 26):
Incredibly, though perhaps not surprisingly, it is patently clear that the conservative justices on the Supreme Court, based on their questions and statements made during argument, are breaking ground for the demise of our democracy.
These justices have left no doubt that they disagree with the holding of the lower courts and will find that Donald Trump enjoys at least some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution for acts while he was president.
Further, it is apparent that they will send the case back to the trial court with instructions to make findings about whether the charges brought by the special counsel, Jack Smith, against Mr. Trump involved official or private acts. This will ensure that a trial of the case cannot be held before the November election.
What is surprising is the painfully inadequate response of the liberal justices and the missed opportunities for the special counsel to present his case about efforts to overturn the 2020 election with greater cogency and passion.
The consequences of this impending miscarriage of justice is to make more likely the return to power of Mr. Trump, who will then use the opportunity to complete his destruction of our democracy and the rule of law.
Gerald Harris
New York
The writer is a retired New York City Criminal Court judge.
To the Editor:
The reasoning of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. in favor of former President Donald Trump on the issue of presidential immunity defies logic.
“A stable democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully,” he said, adding that the prospect of criminal prosecution would make that less likely. “Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?” he asked.
Justice Alito has it backward. On the contrary, there is perhaps no greater deterrent to a president who has lost an election refusing to leave peacefully than the prospect of criminal prosecution. The argument that limiting the criminal liability of a president for unlawfully refusing to leave office would somehow enhance democracy is through the looking glass.
Michael Silk
Laguna Woods, Calif.
To the Editor:
It’s an obvious irony: Donald Trump’s lawyer argues that the president has to have “absolute immunity” for all acts he took while in office. And that this is in order to prevent future frivolous, politically motivated prosecutions.
Which are exactly the kinds of prosecutions, as Mr. Trump says over and over again, that (if elected) he himself will institute against his current political opponents.
Stanford M. Singer
New York
To the Editor:
The basis of judicial legitimacy is that federal courts decide only cases and controversies before them, as opposed to elected legislators, who establish broader policy.
Nevertheless, in the Trump case before the Supreme Court, the Republican-appointed justices are acting as if their role is not just to decide this case before them — whether our former president has immunity for certain presidential acts — but also to decide more far-reaching questions of presidential authority and immunity.
The Times quoted Justice Neil M. Gorsuch saying, “We’re writing a rule for the ages.” Formulating such rules for the ages is not the Roberts court’s role.
Robert A. Jablon
Washington
The writer is a lawyer.
To the Editor:
I was so disappointed by the recent argument before the Supreme Court regarding presidential immunity and the questions and leanings of some of the justices.
If presidents are above the law, why would they even need a White House counsel to advise them?
If a president is above the law, what is the difference between a president and a king?
If a president is above the law, can Joe Biden, the current president, steal the 2024 election?
We all need boundaries, parameters and laws in order to live in a civilized democracy. Presidents included.
Robyn Watts
New York
Celebrating a ‘Momentous’ Decision for Alaska
To the Editor:
Re “Biden Blocks Drilling in Vast Swath of Alaska” (front page, April 20):
Last Friday, the Biden administration announced its decision to deny a permit for the 211-mile Ambler Access Project, a proposed road to mine copper, in Alaska’s central Brooks Range. For us — a group of northwest Alaska residents — the decision was momentous. We gathered that same day for an impromptu celebration.
The decision not only will protect a huge swath of some of the most pristine land remaining in the modern world, but also sided with Indigenous people fighting to protect homelands they have cherished and stewarded for thousands of years. Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland heard their voices and understood, showing courage in her decision to resist forces of development that have relentlessly marched across most of our continent.
The guests at last week’s gathering were part of Protect the Kobuk. We are a fledgling, diverse grass-roots group that sprouted in Alaska’s northwest Arctic to give voice to local residents opposed to this road.
Nearly 700 locals — the vast majority Iñupiat — joined our efforts, a significant number in our remote and thinly populated region. We all are motivated by deep enduring ties to the cultural, spiritual and environmental values of the Kobuk River.
Our resounding gratitude goes out to the Biden administration, and to Secretary Haaland in particular, for taking a strong stand in defending a place and a way of life that we hold dear.
Susan Georgette
Karmen Schaeffer Monigold
Kotzebue, Alaska
Ralph Nader, on R.F.K. Jr. and Third Parties
Once again these leaders are sacrificing their usual support for civil liberties and succumbing to a two-party duopoly bent on excluding other voices from the ballot.
My advice to these excluders is to contest and contend, on the merits of their issues, with candidates they do not like. Instead, they seek to deny candidates’ First Amendment rights to speech, assembly and petition, as well as the choices they offer to voters. Ironically, their narrative of Mr. Kennedy’s positions makes the case for more support by Donald Trump’s wavering voters than by President Biden’s.
Over the years, these groups could have pursued pro-democratic objectives to allay their concerns by supporting ranked choice voting (instant-runoff voting) and the growing interstate compact of state laws allotting Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.
Self-styled progressives should not tell disliked candidates to shut up by dropping out. Rather, they should exercise their own First Amendment rights, oppose them in the electoral and civic arenas and turn out more of their voters. That is the way of authentic believers in democracy.
Ralph Nader
Washington