Opinion | Trump’s Victories at the Supreme Court

To the Editor:

Re " How the Chief Justice Shaped Trump's Supreme Court Winning Streak " (front page, Sept. 15):

This provided interesting, revealing and insidious documentation of Chief Justice John Roberts's behind-the-scenes strategies to assure continuing victories for former President Donald Trump.

No one can review the perversion of justice and distortion of constitutional intent without marveling at the wins the Supreme Court has bestowed on Mr. Trump. Being granted above-the-law status by a politically motivated supermajority on the court led by Chief Justice Roberts and Trump appointees is the opposite of victimization.

And yet, Mr. Trump and his acolytes continue to whine and rant about a "two-tiered" justice system, overt victimization and political persecution. Isn't it time the media and the country at large move away from this nonsensical trope, when the reality is the winner of the two-tiered system is Mr. Trump and the G.O.P., and the real victim of the court's perversion of law and precedent is none other than the American people and the preservation of democracy?

Michael Schneider Laguna Beach, Calif.

To the Editor:

In a remarkable demonstration of investigative reporting, The New York Times has laid bare the behind-the-scenes maneuvering of Chief Justice John Roberts to inflate presidential power beyond constitutional limits while advancing the interests of Donald Trump. Chief Justice Roberts's convoluted opinion in the Trump immunity case will live in infamy, should our democracy survive it.

Equally appalling is the disclosure that, even before the case was briefed and argued and the justices were weighing whether to take the matter, Chief Justice Roberts sent a memo to his colleagues that prejudged the merits of the case. In contravention of all judicial norms and without hearing from the parties, he disparaged the decision of the lower appellate court and suggested it was "likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently."

It is no wonder that the American people have lost confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Supreme Court, some of whose members appear to make judgments based upon political and pecuniary considerations.

Gerald Harris New York The writer is a retired New York City Criminal Court judge.

To the Editor:

Your account of the conservative justices' fulsome praise for Chief Justice John Roberts's immunity opinion only confirms the strength of their self-delusions. In reality, the decision inventing presidential immunity is logically insupportable and manifestly political.

First, immunity rests on the claim that fear of prosecution would constrain presidents from necessary bold action. Yet Chief Justice Roberts points to no instances of executive timidity in 235 years under our Constitution without presidential immunity. Impunity is a "solution" to an imaginary problem.

Second, the dangers of an unrestrained executive are not imaginary and were before the court in this very case — a criminal effort to overturn the election by a sitting president. Can any judge claim to be fairly considering the scope of executive power when they give no weight whatsoever to the risk of abuse of power — or its actuality?

Clarence Thomas is 76 years old; Samuel Alito is 74. Should a Democrat be elected president, she might well be able to replace them. Six right-wing political operatives in black robes shielded Donald Trump because they fear the possibility of their 6-3 supermajority transforming into a 5-4 liberal majority.

Mitchell Zimmerman Palo Alto, Calif. The writer is an attorney and a member of the Supreme Court bar.

To the Editor:

Chief Justice John Roberts's confidence that the arguments in the immunity case would "soar above politics" and "persuade the public" are disingenuous. If Chief Justice Roberts really wanted to soar above politics, the court would not have taken the case at all. Enough said.

Marc H. Lavietes New York

Loving Children Who Are Not Your Own To the Editor:

Re " The Joys of Other People's Children ," by Glynnis MacNicol (Opinion guest essay, Sept. 11):

I'm the mother of two who has benefited deeply from the extraordinary women in my life who have shown up for my children to play board games and flip pancakes as well as sit by hospital beds and help with emergency child care.

These women are not ancillary, but crucial for the well-being of my children, my own sanity and society at large. If children belong to anyone at all, it is to all those who love them and whom they love in return. For what is "belonging" if not reciprocated love?

Deena Guzder New York

To the Editor:

This essay was like a fresh breeze cooling the recent summer heat.

I am a childless woman (no, I do not have cats) who has enjoyed children my whole life — as a teacher, an extended family member and an active community member.

It always seemed strange to me that in this culture there are such myopic views on what constitutes "normal." As a teacher of 40 years and one with a "playful" personality, I have always been blessed with the love and affection of children of all ages.

Now, in my 70s, I can still make them smile, they lighten my spirits and I can boast of hundreds of recipients of my affection. I am lucky enough to still be in contact with some who bring me joy by saying I "made a difference"!

Perhaps it is time for more of us to weigh our life's options (because having children is an option) and to be more open to those who choose "the road less traveled."

Jeanne Genovese Mineola, N.Y.

To the Editor:

I was so happy to read Glynnis MacNicol's lovely . I have three children of my own and would like to thank her and all those dear childless women (cat owners or not) who love our kids.

These are the aunties who work all week and then drive two hours on a Friday night to attend a niece's dance recital, even though the ballerina is on the stage for only three minutes. These are the women who keep kids overnight so a couple can have a weekend to themselves.

These are the women who quietly delight a child, buying that extra something that Mom deems to be a luxury. They take them to the opera; they throw the showers; they buy the wedding dress; they listen; and they dispense wisdom. They are our children's beloved cheerleaders.

Our families would be the poorer if these angels were not in our lives.

Marguerite Delacoma Evanston, Ill.

Dump College Football?