To the Editor:
Re “Despite Some Losses for Trump, Supreme Court Delivers Enduring Conservative Wins” (news analysis, nytimes.com, July 1):
This analysis of the just-completed Supreme Court term puts excessive focus on what it calls “generational, long-sought wins” for conservatives and for President Trump. The more accurate characterization of the president’s record with the court would be “win some, lose some.”
Indeed, only a few months ago the court struck down one of the president’s single biggest initiatives: his tariffs. And in the last week alone, it rejected his signature move to end birthright citizenship; halted his effort to fire a Federal Reserve governor; rejected a challenge he supported seeking to strike down Mississippi’s mail ballot process; and, in a personal affront to the president, declined to hear his challenge to E. Jean Carroll’s $5 million sex assault verdict.
Democrats have been peddling a narrative that the court is in Mr. Trump’s pocket, in order to support their radical proposals to pack and impose term limits on the court. It is a narrative that does not survive scrutiny.
Kenneth A. Margolis Chappaqua, N.Y. The writer is a lawyer.
To the Editor:
It is astonishing that the birthright citizenship decision by the Supreme Court upholding the clear language of the 14th Amendment was not unanimous. Do Justice Clarence Thomas and his fellow dissenters, Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, actually believe that a constitutional amendment can be ended by an executive order? Would they hold that view if a Democratic president issued an executive order terminating the Second Amendment?
Justice Thomas attempts to justify his position by noting that the history of the 14th Amendment indicates that its sole purpose was to make freed slaves citizens. By that logic the Second Amendment must be viewed as limiting the protections of only the weapons used in the late 18th century. From now on, if Justice Thomas were consistent in invoking history in his opinions, the Second Amendment would protect only the ownership of muskets.
Michael McInerney Niles, Ill. The writer is a lawyer.
To the Editor:
All the reporting of the news of the Supreme Court’s unsurprising ruling that upholds the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment is distracting us from the court’s other more constitutionally defiant rulings.
These rulings lifted campaign contribution caps and enhanced the power of big money in elections. They give the president the power of a boss, or a king, to fire high-level government employees, creating instability and partisanship in government and minimizing the importance of expertise. And they recently gutted the Voting Rights Act.
The 14th Amendment is written in such plain language that a nonpolitical court would almost certainly have never allowed this case on the docket.
To me, it is no mystery why the court took so long to issue its ruling on the birthright filing, which took place last year. I can only conclude that it hoped the good news would overshadow the bad news.
Thomas Bonito Essex Fells, N.J.
To the Editor:
Re “Ruling Lifts Spending Limits on Political Parties and Candidates” (front page, July 1):
The conservatives on the Roberts court are wrong to argue that donating money is the same as speech. We can all speak. Only a few have millions of dollars to give.
Everything you do is an expression of who you are and what you want. Most of those actions are not speech. Many actions are restricted by law. Those restrictions are not violations of free speech. Limiting how much money you can use to bribe a politician is not a violation of your First Amendment right to speak.
We have a history of wealthy people and businesses using large amounts of money to influence and buy off politicians. It’s a long-running abuse that turns our democracy into a plutocracy.
Harry Thorn Philadelphia
How Visiting World Cup Fans See America
To the Editor:
The passionate and devoted World Cup soccer fans who are in the United States to support their national teams have discovered to their surprise that life is not as bleak here as they have been led to believe. We are not wallowing in existential despair. Our democracy is not dead. We don’t all hate each other. We haven’t given up on the rule of law.
Visitors, one after another, are quoted as saying the country they have discovered bears little resemblance to the picture of America painted in their home countries. They find a generous people here — well intentioned, hospitable, hard-working, open-minded. They are struck by how much space we have.
And so a heartfelt thank you to you all, the international soccer faithful, for seeing us as we are — a spacious land of spacious hearts.
Margaret McGirr Greenwich, Conn.
The post What the Supreme Court Has Wrought appeared first on New York Times.
