To the editor: Former President Trump’s legal team has asked the US Supreme Court to believe his inept “violent political protest” characterization of the January 6, 2021 insurrection. (“Trump asks US Supreme Court to keep on the ballot in Colorado”, January 3)
That dubious attempt to prevent Trump’s disqualification from the ballot under the 14th Amendment reflects how the high court’s conservative supermajority rulings are often seen as “partisan tricks.”
But no matter how inclined Republican appointees are to make partisan decisions, they are surely smart enough to know the truth behind: Reliable polls confirm that Trump’s primary opponents have the best chance of prevailing over President Biden in the election. general.
To be sure, conservatives on the high court want their supermajority to be preserved during the next presidential term. So let’s hope they overturn Trump’s re-election bid by upholding the Colorado court’s decision.
M. Edward Alston, Santa Monica
..
To the editor: Former U.S. Attorney and Deputy Attorney General Harry Litman analyzes an amicus brief from the group American Oversight in America v. Trump that he describes as a persuasive suggestion that the former president’s immunity claim does not qualify for an immediate appeal.
However, American Oversight’s argument is contrary to the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Mitchell v. Forsyth (1985), in which the court held that “the denial of a substantial claim to absolute immunity is an appealable order before final judgment, for the essence of Absolute immunity is the right of its possessor not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil reparation process.”
Clearly, the same reasoning would apply (even more so) in a criminal case, such as the one against Trump.
Consequently, although I am not a fan of the former president, I must agree with his lawyer’s position.
Pamela Hobbs, Los Angeles
The author is an attorney who has taught classes on First Amendment law at UCLA.
