Regarding the March 3 front-page article “Next on the docket: A lot more Trump”:
It is completely unconscionable that former president Donald Trump could possibly succeed in delaying the due process of justice past the election from which he should be barred. Is there, or is there not, anyone in the state, circuit or supreme courts who is still committed to the rule of order?
Some are more equal than others. These are not new cases or new defendants. And should Mr. Trump be reelected, delay surely would result in the disappearance of these cases and thus the last opportunity to hold him accountable.
Jeff Zalusky, Cobb Island, Md.
In her March 3 article, Ann E. Marimow wrote: “The court’s announcement Wednesday that it will hear the case in late April drew enormous criticism for boosting [Donald] Trump’s efforts to delay his D.C. election obstruction trial until after the 2024 election.” That criticism is justly deserved. Justice Amy Coney Barrett said in a 2021 speech, “My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.” It will take more than addresses on university campuses to convince the American public. The court’s decision to slow-walk the election-interference case against the former president puts the lie to Justice Barrett’s contention.
Advertisement
Joe Mistrett, Chevy Chase
Share this articleShareReporter Ann E. Marimow wrote that the Supreme Court must determine “whether Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution on charges of trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election.” But the justices have said they will contemplate a somewhat different query: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” In one sense, this is a narrower question, asking the court to consider presidential immunity rather than absolute immunity. But it also broadens the court’s inquiry beyond a specific set of acts and turns a yes-or-no question into something more open-ended. It’s not even clear that the eventual ruling will provide a definitive answer to the question of whether the former president is entitled to immunity in this specific case. Instead, the Supreme Court may remand that crucial question back to the lower court, resulting in further delay. That is not what the country needs.
Laura Greenberg, Bethesda
Advertisement
Our four highest-governing authorities have failed to “support and defend” the Constitution and our democracy. First, Donald Trump tried to stay in power through alleged fraud and insurrection. Second, the Senate failed to convict him for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021. Third, Attorney General Merrick Garland failed to investigate that awful day in a timely manner by waiting so long to appoint special counsel Jack Smith. (Smith himself has worked more quickly.) Fourth, the Supreme Court has jeopardized a timely Jan. 6 trial by delaying its oral arguments about Mr. Trump’s immunity claims. Our political institutions are badly failing the American people.
Glen A. Chilstrom, Alexandria
The first 100 days of a new administration are especially important. If Donald Trump is elected, his delayed trials and their inevitable appeals ensure that his first priority will be his legal troubles. He will only be a part-time president. If both houses of Congress are in turmoil, who will run the store?
Thornton Parker, Rockingham
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7uK3SoaCnn6Sku7G70q1lnKedZLyxtc2ipqerX2d9c4COaWpoaGhkwbPBzKlkraqZlrlusMSlmLJlYmV%2FdXnEpZycrJmku3A%3D