To the Editor:
Re “Justices Reject Trump’s Tariffs in Key Blow to His Trade Policy; President Berates Court, Vowing Workaround” (front page, Feb. 21):
Any momentary elation I felt from reading the first analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision as some kind of genuine rebuke — at long last! — of President Trump’s executive overreach evaporated after his news conference on Friday. True to form, he reverted to aggressively asserting his right to do as he pleases.
With this decision, Chief Justice John Roberts may think he’s demonstrating the independence of the judiciary, but it isn’t so. Mr. Trump intends to continue circumventing any laws and restrictions whatsoever.
The various other workarounds available to him, particularly a section of the relevant law that no other president has ever invoked, allow him to make good on his stubborn insistence that he doesn’t need Congress to continue imposing his will on U.S. and world trade.
The court “victory” is therefore an empty one indeed.
Bryan L. Tucker Boston
To the Editor:
Re “With a 6-3 Ruling, Independence Is Declared” (news analysis, front page, Feb. 21):
Welcome as it may be, one decision does not define a court. We can hope, but independence is something shown over time.
Ellen Steinbaum Boston
To the Editor:
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in his dissent in the Supreme Court tariff ruling, wrote about a substantial “mess” that could ensue in any refund process. Yet when the court overturned Roe v. Wade, no such “mess” seems to have been considered despite its close to 50-year history, versus the one-year on-and-off history of President Trump’s tariffs.
Geoffrey Greif Towson, Md.
To the Editor:
Re “Rate Raised by One-Half a Day Later. It’s Now 15%” (news article, Feb. 22):
Dear G.O.P.: Good luck running on the Republican “affordability” agenda.
Adam Stoler Bronx
PEN America Defends Its Record on Free Speech
To the Editor:
Re “Writers Against Free Expression,” by James Kirchick (opinion guest essay, Feb. 23):
PEN America rejects the claims that its decision to withdraw a Jan. 29 statement on the cancellation of performances by an Israeli comedian reflects capitulation to a pressure campaign or signals a turn away from the organization’s mission to uphold free expression.
Our original statement failed to fully account for relevant facts about how and why the venues made their decisions to cancel the comedian’s shows. It did not sufficiently address the rights of private venues in making curatorial decisions vis-à-vis the expressive interests of the performer. Additionally, publishing the statement after the Los Angeles venue had already reversed course and offered to reschedule the event was inconsistent with our past practice.
We regret that our initial failure to offer a fuller explanation for the withdrawal of the statement allowed for misinterpretation, including that we are retreating from our principles or that the decision was based on the comedian’s identity. Neither is true.
Last year, PEN America issued nearly 250 press statements. But statements are not all we do. We are leading the fight against book bans, mobilizing resistance to government attacks on academic freedom and supporting writers facing safety threats.
We have defended Jewish and Israeli as well as Palestinian writers and academics who’ve been targeted and canceled. We continue to oppose ideological litmus tests as conditions for artistic performance. We know that any given statement may be taken out of context and met with charges of bias, but we refuse to be silenced by that risk. We must therefore hold ourselves to the highest possible standards.
Summer Lopez Clarisse Rosaz Shariyf New York The writers are co-chief executives of PEN America.
A Plea to Old-Guard Republicans
To the Editor:
If I thought it would do any good, I would get on my knees and beg that the remnants of the Republican Party — those who remember what it means to be a conservative committed to the Constitution, the rule of law and efficient governance — plainly and publicly reject President Trump and his MAGA movement, then back candidates who reflect their traditional values.
Now, I understand that would mean losing elections, but it might also mean restoration of some self-respect and the possibility of a conservative future cleansed of the red stains.
David Behrman Houston
The post Assessing the Supreme Court’s Tariff Ruling appeared first on New York Times.
