To the editor: The U.S. Supreme Court is on track to lower its public approval rating than Congress's—quite an achievement. In fact, you might be as distrustful as used car dealers. (“More delays? The Supreme Court was wrong to postpone Trump's immunity decision,” editorial, February 29)
In oral arguments last month, the justices ignored the facts of the Colorado Supreme Court's disqualification of former President Trump from that state's ballot and focused on trivialities, obviously trying to justify the ruling against impeachment. Trump. This, despite his numerous acts in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution, and the fact that states hold elections.
More recently, he not only decided to consider the former president's appeal of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' bulletproof ruling on presidential immunity, but also halted any progress in the Department of Justice special counsel's Jan. 6 case. Justice, Jack Smith.
Keep this up and the public will see the Supreme Court as another wing of the Republican Party, subservient to Trump.
David Rynerson, Huntington Beach
..
To the editor: In 1974, Judge William Rehnquist recused himself from the case involving President Richard Nixon's White House tapes. Today, Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from the presidential immunity case due to his wife's involvement in the January 6 insurrection.
The court's impartiality, or the appearance of impartiality, has been harmed by granting certiorari and establishing a seven-week briefing period, when the matter has been fully briefed in the D.C. Circuit.
Is the court endorsing an apparent delay strategy so that the case is not heard before the Republican Party nominates Trump for president or the election is held? It certainly seems that way to the public.
Sidney Lanier, Long Beach
..
To the editor: The Supreme Court has limited the question of complete immunity for any act a president may commit while in office to “whether, and if so, to what extent a former president enjoys presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct that allegedly involves official acts during his mandate. office.”
With all due respect to the justices, I think the inclusion of the phrase “official acts” sidesteps the real issue, which is whether a president has blanket immunity for anything he does while in office.
By asking the question this way, the justices can, if they wish, hold that the president's traditional functions and acts (such as issuing executive orders and participating in military activities) confer immunity, while unofficial acts, such as acting as a candidate No.
The judges waited weeks to pose the question so carefully. I personally believe that they already understand what the decision will be and have asked the question to achieve that outcome.
Barry S. Rubin, Beverly Hills
..
To the editor: Who is the reporter who will ask Trump this question, based on the scenario posed by a DC Circuit judge?
“In light of your strong belief that the president should have full immunity for his official actions, would you be willing to state that President Biden should never face prosecution if he orders Navy SEAL Team Six to kill his opponents?” politicians?”
William P. Bekkala, West Hollywood
