Letters to the Editor: The Supreme Court is acting like a wing of the Republican Party

Republican candidate Donald Trump speaks at a primary election night party in Columbia, S.C., on Feb. 24.
(Andrew Harnik / Associated Press)

To the editor: The U.S. Supreme Court is well on its way to making its public approval rating lower than that of Congress — quite the achievement. In fact, it could become just as distrusted as used car dealers. (“More delays? Supreme Court was wrong to put off Trump immunity decision,” editorial, Feb. 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 ruling against Trump’s removal. This, despite his numerous acts in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution, and the fact that states run elections.

Most recently, it not only decided to consider the former president’s appeal of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ bullet-proof ruling on presidential immunity, but it also halted any progress of Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 case.


Keep it up, and the public will just consider the Supreme Court to be another wing of the Republican Party, bowing in servitude to Trump.

David Rynerson, Huntington Beach


To the editor: In 1974, Justice 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 Jan. 6 insurrection.

The court’s impartiality, or the appearance of impartiality, has been damaged by granting certiorari and setting a seven-week briefing period, when the issue has been fully briefed in D.C. Circuit.

Is the court aiding an apparent strategy of delay so that the case will not be tried before Trump is nominated for president by the GOP or the election is held? It certainly appears so to the public.

Sidney Lanier, Long Beach



To the editor: The Supreme Court has limited the question of full immunity for any act a president might commit while in office to “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

With all due respect to the justices, I think the inclusion of the phrase “official acts” dodges the real issue, which is whether a president has blanket immunity for anything done in office.

By phrasing the question this way, the justices can, if they wish, hold that traditional functions and acts of the president — such as issuing executive orders and engaging in military activities — confer immunity, whereas non-official acts such as acting as a candidate do not.

The justices waited weeks to so carefully pose the question. I personally believe they already have an understanding as to what the decision will be and have framed the question to meet that result.

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 judge on the D.C. Circuit:

“In light of your adamant belief that the president must have complete immunity for his official actions, would you be willing to state that President Biden should never face prosecution should he order Navy SEAL Team Six to kill his political opponents?”

William P. Bekkala, West Hollywood