The Uproar Over the Immunity Ruling
More from our inbox:
- A Ruling Supporting Corruption
- An Exodus of Doctors From States With Abortion Bans
- Religion in Public Schools
Credit…Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times
To the Editor:
Re “Justices Give Trump Substantial Immunity” (front page, July 2):
So it turns out that Richard Nixon was right after all: When the president does it, it’s legal.
Instead of telling Donald Trump that he had no clothes on, the Supreme Court has cloaked the former president and convicted felon with imperial robes. The court has substituted sophistry for legal analysis.
In years to come, if historians are still permitted to practice their craft, they will refer to this ruling as the Dred Scott case of the 21st century.
God save us, and God save the United States.
Jay N. Feldman
Port Washington, N.Y.
The writer is a lawyer.
To the Editor:
Interesting, or hypocritical, how the so-called originalist Supreme Court justices dreamed up new immunities for Donald Trump that are nowhere mentioned in or even implied by the original text of the Constitution.
Indeed, broadening of executive immunity is radically antithetical to the Constitution’s purpose, design and structure: prioritization of real, meaningful checks and balances among the three branches.
William August
Cambridge, Mass.
The writer is a lawyer.
To the Editor:
What has happened to Chief Justice John Roberts?
