To the editor: Just when you think columnist Jonah Goldberg has found his way from the dark side, he goes right back to conservative apologetics. Now, he uses excruciating mental gymnastics to say that the United States Supreme Court is, in fact, not very partisan.
First, it states that the recent mifepristone decision was ruled unanimously “in favor of the pro-abortion rights position.” The ruling had nothing to do with the merits of the pro-abortion rights side. Rather, it was a technical decision based on the plaintiffs' lack of standing, leaving this vital issue open to future legal attacks.
His praise for the repeal of the ban on bump stocks is like scratching your head. The sole purpose of this device is to provide machine gun functionality to semi-automatic rifles. The ban of this device by the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives followed Congress's ban on machine guns. This is exactly the kind of proper interpretation of existing law that federal agencies do all the time.
Finally, while the court may eventually rule against former President Trump's immunity claim, the slow pace of this case is having what appears to be the effect of delaying the verdict on Trump's insurrectionary activities until after the election. November.
If Goldberg doesn't care, we will continue to believe what our own eyes lie.
Earle Hartling, Culver City
..
To the editor: Goldberg maintains that the Supreme Court is more unified than it is perceived to be, except in “big” cases like the 2022 Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.
The same could be said of the Supreme Court led by Roger Taney that decided the Dred Scott decision, which held that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and therefore could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. .
Stephen Smith, Westchester
..
To the editor: Goldberg writes: “If Trump is re-elected, one can imagine that many liberals will suddenly look more favorably on the idea that presidents cannot unilaterally rewrite the law.”
No, but dictators can. And one candidate has already told us who he will be. I hope we are not so stupid as to ignore it.
Mary Sidell, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Goldberg ignores what the current conservative supermajority has communicated through its handful of ideologically biased decisions: send them cases that provide an opportunity to reverse a precedent they detest.
The Dobbs case, which overturned nearly 50 years of precedent, is the best example. What could be next is the enactment of a law in Louisiana requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in school classrooms.
Longstanding precedent prohibiting such religious indoctrination in public schools probably won't matter to this high court's theocracy-indulgent supermajority. You will welcome the opportunity to falsely assign some general secular purpose to the Louisiana Bible Post.
Perhaps I should pray that Louisiana's brazen fusion of church and state does not reach the Supreme Court until the pre-Trump ideological balance is restored.
Edgar M. Martinez, Orcutt, California.
