More from our inbox:
- A Gift to a Medical School, and a Call to Arms
- Gender Identity and a 6-Year-Old’s Shame
- The Loss of a Herbarium
Former President Donald J. Trump appealed to the Supreme Court a ruling rejecting his claim that he is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times
To the Editor:
Re “Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Immunity Case” (front page, Feb. 29):
The Supreme Court has decided to consider Donald Trump’s immunity case on a purportedly expedited basis, with oral arguments set for the third week of April. Did the court really need to hear the merits of this case at all? Is the question of whether Mr. Trump is immune for inciting an insurrection and trying to overturn an election really up for debate?
The D.C. Circuit Court’s exceedingly well-reasoned, comprehensive and unanimous decision definitely answered that question. And yet, the Supreme Court has now granted Mr. Trump another delay that, it must know, could well lead to the result that Mr. Trump will not face trial before the election.
And, God forbid Mr. Trump wins, we all know there will never be a trial, because he will either pardon himself or order the Justice Department to end its prosecutions of him.
There must be a reason that the court felt compelled to hear this case on this schedule, a schedule that could very well result in calamitous consequences to this country. It took the court four days to grant certiorari and decide Bush v. Gore. Why not here?
It makes one consider the possibility, as painful as that might be, that some members of the Supreme Court, for reasons having nothing to do with the merits of the case, for reasons having nothing to do with the fair and impartial administration of justice, for reasons having nothing to do with what is best and necessary for our democracy, decided to prevent that from happening.
Laurie Korenbaum
Brooklyn
The writer is a retired federal prosecutor.
To the Editor:
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”
