A judicial finger on Trump’s scale
Re “Supreme Court to hear Trump’s immunity claim,” Feb. 29
The United States Supreme Court has just confirmed it is in the camp of the former president, a defendant in multiple criminal and civil cases. It is doubtful that voters will have the chance to know whether a jury of Donald Trump’s peers will convict or exonerate him before the November election.
Did the justices have to take the immunity case that was unanimously decided by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals? No.
Did they have to wait so long to announce that decision? No.
Having decided to take the case, did they have to schedule hearings all the way out to the week of April 22? No.
A case with such wideranging importance has been treated by the court with incredible disregard of the voters. There is only one conclusion: The Supreme Court is putting its finger on the scale in favor of Trump.
James Zimring
Tarzana
The Supreme Court, its reputation already in tatters, has just lost all credibility.
There is nothing the justices can write that could expand upon or improve the compelling and comprehensive decision by the D.C. Circuit Court last month. Yet Supreme Court not only has agreed to hear the case, but it also took its time making its decision.
Now the entire case continues to be on hold for at least two more months and probably beyond.
You have to ask yourself: Is the conservative supermajority of the Supreme Court trying its best to help Trump and march our country toward the possibility of a theocratic autocracy?
Marcia Goodman Long Beach
Anyone who believes the Supreme Court’s conservatives will side with Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution for acts taken while president should think twice.
Granted, the court’s right-wing supermajority may be inclined to favor conservative litigants in pivotal rulings. But as much as they may prefer the election of a Republican president, they needn’t do Trump any favors — not when they have lifetime tenure.
Hence, with polls showing that among viable GOP candidates Trump is the most likely to lose to President Biden, look for the high court’s right-wing majority to rule against the former president.
This contentious case will afford the high court’s conservatives a rare opportunity for a win-win: They can deny Trump’s appeal, thereby fostering the illusion that they rule free of partisanship, and still boost the GOP’s chance of retaking the presidency.
Betty Turner
Sherman Oaks
Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith tells us Trump shouldn’t be tried before the election, because a court establishing his guilt for attempting to overthrow an election would be unfair to him as a presidential candidate.
The fact that this Orwellian doublethink is taken seriously says all we need to know about American capacity for rational thought.
Brian Masson
Harbor City
I have heard arguments for and against expanding the size of the Supreme Court and instituting term limits for justices.
After this decision by the court to needlessly delay resolution of the question as to whether a president of the United States has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution after a voluminous, well-founded and crystal-clear ruling by the D.C. Circuit, I am no longer undecided: The Supreme Court must be reformed.
Rita Zwern Burbank