Letters to the Editor: Justices are allowing an adjudicated insurrectionist on the ballot. Shame on them
To the editor: The most interesting takeaway from the U.S. Supreme Court decision that permits former President Trump to remain on the 2024 ballot is not that states lack the power to remove federal candidates from the ballot.
Rather, the court did not even attempt to contest in any way the factual finding that Trump is an oath-breaking insurrectionist.
Just think about that for a moment. Our Supreme Court is apparently not troubled by the notion that an oath-breaking insurrectionist is the standard bearer for the Republican Party.
Therefore, let history record March 4, 2024, as the day the Supreme Court confirmed the public’s worst suspicions that it is just as partisan, spineless and cowardly as the rest of the GOP. By allowing an admitted insurrectionist to run for president, the justices broke their own oath to protect and defend our Constitution.
Drew Pomerance, Woodland Hills
..
To the editor: We live in a nation that is still defined by the critical legal principle that you are innocent until proven guilty. Trump was never found guilty of anything related to the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot despite being impeached.
Regardless, some Democrats wanted to remove his name from the ballot, and thus remove Americans’ freedom of choice to vote. This is deeply shameful.
These politically motivated actions, which have further alienated Americans from our government and divided us further, only make Trump more popular as a political outsider as we approach the election this November.
I’m glad that the Supreme Court has settled this issue once and for all.
Michael Pravica, Henderson, Nev.
..
To the editor: The Supreme Court “moved with uncommon speed” to remove the 14th Amendment barrier to insurrectionist Trump in time for Super Tuesday.
On the other hand, it refused to act in a timely manner on his claims of absolute immunity, delaying the actual trial regarding insurrection, possibly until after the November election.
Thus the Roberts court — perhaps more accurately called “the Trump court,” even though John G. Roberts Jr. is the chief justice — has confirmed its status as a bunch of “partisan hacks,” to use Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s memorable phrase.
Scott McKenzie, La Cañada Flintridge
..
To the editor: On Dec. 20, 2023, UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky wrote in The Times that the Colorado Supreme Court was constitutionally correct in barring Trump from that state’s ballot.
All nine U.S. Supreme Court justices disagreed with Chemerinsky. The three liberal justices followed the law, so it appears that Chemerinsky blends his politics into his legal interpretations.
David Waldowski, Laguna Woods
