Justices can do GOP a big favor

Re “Trump appeals ballot ban to high court,” Jan. 4

Former President Trump’s legal team has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to buy its inept “violent political protest” characterization of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

That dubious attempt to preclude Trump’s ballot disqualification under the 14th Amendment reflects how the high court’s conservative supermajority often is deemed to rule as “partisan hacks.”

But however inclined Republican appointees may be to issue partisan-contorted decisions, they surely are smart enough to know the lurking truth: Reliable polls confirm that Trump’s primary opponents stand the best chance of prevailing over President Biden in the general election.

No doubt the high court’s conservatives want to see their supermajority preserved through the next presidential term. So look for them to quash Trump’s reelection bid by upholding the Colorado court’s decision.

M. Edward Alston Santa Monica

Re “Trump’s effort to hold up Jan. 6 trial is in doubt,” Opinion, Jan. 4

Former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general Harry Litman discusses an amicus brief by the group American Oversight in United States vs. Trump that he describes as persuasively suggesting the former president’s immunity claim doesn’t qualify for immediate appeal.

However, American Oversight’s argument is contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Mitchell vs. Forsyth (1985), in which the court held that “the denial of a substantial claim of absolute immunity is an order appealable before final judgment, for the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor’s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action.”

Clearly, the same reasoning would apply (even more so) in a criminal case, such as that against Trump.

Accordingly, although not a fan of the former president, I must agree with his counsel’s position.

Pamela Hobbs

Los Angeles The writer is a lawyer who has taught classes on 1st Amendment law at UCLA.