Do I still live in the United States? Incredulous. That was my reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court pondering the request to grant full immunity to a president for any “official” actions while in office.
A New York Times article published in the Tribune (“Immunity case takes unusual turn,” April 28) quoted Justice Samuel Alito as saying, “If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?”
I am dumbfounded, beyond incredulous now.
There have been many “hotly contested” elections in our nation’s history (e.g., John F. Kennedy versus Richard Nixon, Thomas Dewey versus Harry Truman, Al Gore versus George W. Bush), but never has there been destabilization until Donald Trump attempted to controvert election results to retain his power.
Our country has remained stable for more than 248 years because we have relied on the durable and wise foundation set by our Founders. They created three branches of government, and none would have ultimate power; rather, there would be checks and balances. Now we may obliterate those balances in favor of allowing the president free rein?
The president unchecked, not personally bound to obey our laws: Why would we give that power to the only person in our history who has actually attempted to destabilize the peaceful transfer of power, which is the hallmark of our nation?
— Joan Faloona, Wheaton
Article misconstrues court’s role
The April 28 front-page article on the Donald Trump immunity case before the Supreme Court included the subheadline “Conservative justices on the Supreme Court seem to avoid Trump conduct” and the observation of a Stanford University law professor that “what struck me most about the case was the relentless efforts by several of the justices on the conservative side not to focus on, consider or even acknowledge the facts of the actual case in front of them.” The article dreadfully misconstrues how the law works, as well as the role of the Supreme Court.
For starters, whatever Trump’s conduct may have been, there are no facts in front of the Supreme Court in this matter to include, and that is because there has been no trial as yet to adjudicate the facts. There are allegations, of course, but there are no adjudicated facts of record, which are what the court can address or consider in a contested matter.
The inference here seems to be something like: “Haven’t the justices read the unproven allegations, which they should have relied on?” Or perhaps: “Don’t the justices read the papers or watch TV news?”
Well, I’m sure they do, but whatever they read in the papers or see on TV has no role as some sort of evidence in their deliberations on the matter. To do so would be a crass violation of the essential due process to which every defendant is entitled.
— Neil Gaffney, Chicago
Voters deserve to know truth
After listening to the arguments before the courts about Donald Trump, it looks like the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in one form or another that Trump or any future president is above the law as long as he/she thinks it is good for the country. At the very least, if the justices send it back to the lower courts, it means that these cases cannot go forward before the election.
I think that the people of this country have the right to find out the truth and the whole truth about what Trump did or did not do before they on what person should be president.
I no longer know what country I am living in; I grew up knowing that no person is above the law, not even the president. That there were limits to his/her power. That we had a government of checks and balance that no one part of the government was above the law. But it appears that will all change soon.
Since I was a much younger man, Republicans have always tried to limit the power of the president and have always argued that the courts should follow the original intent of the Founding Fathers in all matters.
Now that has all changed for Trump. Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers wanted a president with unlimited power or that the executive branch would have unlimited power? What happened to checks and balances? What happened to majority rule? What has happened to the people of this country?
Are we really willing to throw away 250 years of our history as a democratic country in which no person is above the law? And all of this for Trump.
— Jeff Carr, Carol Stream
Editorial board overlooks Jan. 6
I am confused by the Tribune Editorial Board’s “Want to move to Canada? Think carefully, Americans.,” editorial of April 26, stating that “Americans, whether it’s (Donald) Trump, (Joe) Biden or someone else who wins on Nov. 5, better hold off on calling the movers.” The board makes it sound like it doesn’t matter who wins in November. How is this consistent with the editorial board’s “Concede or resign, President Trump” editorial after the events at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021? “This was not a mere protest,” the board wrote then. “It was a mass act of insurrection, aimed at intimidating democratically elected lawmakers and nullifying a legitimate election. … It was an appalling assault on the fundamental principles of constitutional government.” Perfectly stated.
It’s ironic the editorial board now is mocking Americans who think of leaving “if an upcoming election doesn’t go their way” while apparently forgetting about who led the insurrection the last time an election didn’t go his way.
No matter what we think of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, he has not led an attempt at “nullifying a legitimate election.” Does the editorial board now really think a person who attempted to do exactly that deserves to be president again?
— Kevin Coughlin, Evanston
‘Gomer Pyle’ more convincing
On Sunday night, I started watching the CNN documentary “Misinformation: The Trump Faithful,” about the blind fanaticism of Donald Trump followers regarding misinformation, conspiracy theories and baseless beliefs.
After about 10 minutes, I switched over to “Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.” on the rerun channel. It was much more realistic.
— Mike Calcina, Chicago
Consider insiders’ points of view
Gen. James Mattis, Gen. Mark Milley, John Bolton, Mark Esper, John Kelly, Bill Barr, Cassidy Hutchinson, Anthony Scaramucci, Stephanie Grisham, Sarah Matthews, Alyssa Farah Griffin and former Vice President Mike Pence are among those who worked side by side with Donald Trump when he was president and later came out publicly to state that he is not fit to serve.
If they, who observed him closely, recognize how deeply flawed this man is and how dangerous he would be for our republic, then I say we must reject him also. Those who follow him blindly and are unwilling to see him as he really is must remember history. Men and women rallied behind the likes of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and it was the downfall of their country.
Trump’s Project 2025 will benefit only the wealthy and powerful. He has indicated he will dismantle the Justice Department and the Education Department, recruit only conservatives to Washington and turn over all power to the executive branch. That would not benefit anyone but himself.
It is a cautionary tale and one every voter must reckon with before casting a ballot in 2024.
— Marla Cowan, Glenview
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.