A Low Day at the High Court

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/25/opinion/letters/supreme-court-trump.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Linda Greenhouse’s fine essay “The Supreme Court’s Loyalty Test” (Sunday Review, Dec. 22) describes the significance of the court’s ultimate decisions in the three Trump-related cases it just agreed to review. Those decisions, she says, will “give the country much-needed clarity” about whether the court is more loyal to President Trump than to the rule of law.

But the fact that the court decided to review the cases tells us that it is more loyal to Mr. Trump. The court has failed the loyalty test.

There was no good reason for the Supreme Court to review the rulings of the three federal circuit courts that rendered decisions against Mr. Trump. If those rulings had been left to stand, the documents (tax returns, financial returns, records of conversations) and testimony that would damage this president, perhaps fatally, would have immediately been produced. And the Democrats’ claim that witnesses and additional documents should be part of the Senate impeachment trial would have added substance.

There are reasons a Supreme Court should take a case. Those reasons do not exist here. All the court’s action does is delay until the middle of next year — perhaps after the Senate trial — the production of documents and people that the public is entitled to see and hear from. That delay may well save Mr. Trump his presidency.

Mr. Trump won. The rule of law lost.

Martin GarbusNew YorkThe writer is a constitutional trial lawyer.

To the Editor:

Re “The Secrets of Successful Activism” (Op-Ed, Dec. 17):

Hahrie Han is right to note that “democracy is a muscle” that strengthens as we use it. What she didn’t mention is that using that muscle changes your life.

For the last two years, I have been profiling women who have become effective activists and leaders through my podcast, “The Pledge.” What I see over and over is that once we start raising our voices, we find and build strength we never knew we had.

Many of these women have experienced trauma earlier in their lives, and it is through political activism and working for the good of their communities that they have found healing and power.

Not only is it salutary, it is also contagious. Interviewing these women has helped me find new energy for action, and reasons for hope in depressing times.

Allison Daskal HausmanAuburndale, Mass.

To the Editor:

Re “The Party That Ruined the Planet” (column, Dec. 13):

Thanks to Paul Krugman for using his power as a columnist to try to do good. Mr. Krugman lays out the facts of climate change and the terrifying but predictable rate at which it is setting the stage for an uninhabitable planet. He points out that the modern Republican Party has watched this happen and shirked its responsibilities every step of the way.

It is a horrible feeling to recognize how powerless we are as citizens to inject common sense into this scenario while our planet withers and groans from our abuses. The true enemies are those in power who have chosen to ignore the facts on the only issue of lasting importance: survival.

Amy KnitzerMontclair, N.J.

To the Editor:

I have one disagreement with this excellent article. Paul Krugman seems to imply that the whole Republican world has been snookered into believing that climate change is a hoax.

This may be true of some of the more feebleminded, but most of the Republicans who (a) are in public office or (b) benefit from the curtailment of environmental protection probably well understand the problem. If they publicly denigrate climate science it’s only because (a) they fear political reprisal from President Trump and his supporters, or their own donors, if they don’t, or (b) they believe that such protection threatens their jobs or impairs their investments.

Anthony M. PaulCoral Gables, Fla.