To the Editor: <\/p>\n
Re Barring Trump From the Ballot Would Be a Mistake, by Samuel Moyn (Opinion guest essay, Dec. 24): <\/p>\n
Despite the vast difference in our academic credentials (me: B.A. from Miami University, Professor Moyn: J.D. from Harvard), I dispute the authors conclusion that American democracy will suffer if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court to bar Donald Trump from the primary ballot in that state. <\/p>\n
Professor Moyn cites the fact that many Americans dispute Mr. Trumps culpability in inciting the riot of Jan. 6, and states that barring him from the ballot will incite more violence. But Mr. Trumps rhetoric urging followers to fight like hell that day is construed by all but the most rabid MAGA supporters as clear incitement and should disqualify him. If Mr. Trump is not punished, how can we expect any disgruntled election loser to graciously accept defeat? <\/p>\n
The court, Professor Moyn asserts, should pay attention to public opinion when crafting a decision. The court did not, however, pay the slightest bit of attention to public opinion when it overturned Roe v. Wade or when it struck down the New York State law enacting strict gun control measures. <\/p>\n
I believe the court will overturn the Colorado decision, not because it is the proper legal action, but because the court has devolved into a partisan political body fraught with corruption, a majority of whose members would like to see Mr. Trump back in office. Most Americans, according to some opinion polls, agree with me. <\/p>\n
Bill Gottdenker Mountainside, N.J. <\/p>\n
To the Editor: <\/p>\n
The proponents and ratifiers of the post-Civil War 14th Amendment knew all too well from their experience the ever-present need to protect the nation from those who seek to undermine and supplant the legitimate constitutional order. They included Section 3 to prevent such tyranny to the extent any parchment barrier could. Thankfully, over time we have not had much need to invoke its provisions. We do now. <\/p>\n
The Supreme Court need not wait for the consensual narrative about Donald Trump that Prof. Samuel Moyn believes is lacking. That would make the court superfluous. In his majority opinion in the Dobbs case, overruling Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito emphatically rejected the idea that the court should be affected by social and political pressures or the publics reaction to our work. The same applies to adjudicating Section 3. <\/p>\n
Laurence H. Winer Marblehead, Mass. The writer is emeritus professor of law at Sandra Day OConnor College of Law at Arizona State University. <\/p>\n
To the Editor: <\/p>\n
Prof. Samuel Moyn is correct that the facts as to what took place on Jan. 6 are widely disputed. Donald Trump has a personality cult with millions of armed and angry members who would dispute that the sun rises in the east if he said it rises in the west. The theory of evolution is widely disputed too, by tens of millions of religious fundamentalists. But in neither case does opinion outweigh facts and even the Colorado district court ruling that Mr. Trump could not be removed from that states ballot conceded that the facts showed he had engaged in insurrection. <\/p>\n
Its certainly possible, perhaps even likely, that a U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming Colorados ruling would incite some of Mr. Trumps followers to violence. But were he to remain on the ballot everywhere and lose next November, theyd be just as likely to explode maybe egged on by Mr. Trump himself resulting in a bigger, more heavily armed rebellion. <\/p>\n
Perhaps the best solution is not for the justices to protect Donald Trump but for the court to refuse to hear the case, as I believe it should have done with Bush v. Gore. The Constitution gives the states power to choose their presidential electors; surely that extends to rejecting a candidate its own courts have ruled is ineligible. <\/p>\n
Eric B. Lipps Staten Island <\/p>\n
To the Editor: <\/p>\n
It is important to note that a Supreme Court ruling against Donald Trumps qualification would not remove the issue from political remedy. Congress could simply vote to allow Mr. Trump back onto the ballot, as provided for in the 14th Amendment. Voters could make their voices heard on the matter by writing to their representatives. The 14th Amendment is a very reasonable and moderate part of the system of checks and balances. <\/p>\n
Steve Bellantoni Toronto <\/p>\n
To the Editor: <\/p>\n
Re Dont Give In to Political Despair. Trump Is Too Great a Threat (column, Dec. 20): <\/p>\n
I always appreciate Michelle Goldbergs clearsighted commentary on our world, but today I felt as if she were talking directly to me and to my friends, who are all doing exactly what we shouldnt giving in to political despair. <\/p>\n
I knocked on doors for years, talking with voters who agreed with me and voters who didnt, and those who just didnt want to be bothered (but could still sometimes be reached with an emotional appeal). But Im getting older, and more tired. <\/p>\n
I needed the push to make a substantial donation to an organization that recruits, trains and organizes door-knockers if I am not going to do it myself, and I am grateful to Ms. Goldberg for giving me that shove. <\/p>\n
Susanna Lang Chicago <\/p>\n
To the Editor: <\/p>\n
Paul Krugmans column The Biggest Threat to Americas Universities(Dec. 15) offers welcome perspective. Mr. Krugman acknowledges the real danger of the latest outbreak of antisemitism within the Ivy League, but also draws attention to the war on truth waged by conservative politicians at public schools and universities. <\/p>\n
I was educated at and have taught at public universities, including U.C.L.A. and Berkeley. When I teach courses on immigration and the politics of gender and race at the University of Nevada, Reno, most of my students are shocked to discover how little they learned about these topics in high school. And they come from the relatively liberal West. Imagine how much less students will learn in places like Florida in the coming years. <\/p>\n
Defending against the conservative effort to gut public education must become our priority. Preoccupation with what happens in the Ivy League distracts from the real battle for American education. <\/p>\n
State universities have the potential to educate generations of historically literate citizens, but were not on a path to realizing that potential. Students at nonelite colleges and universities are ignored because they are underestimated and undervalued. <\/p>\n
Our lack of commitment to this important goal and funding to support it is the result of American elitism. Meanwhile, the recent behavior of students at the Ivies shows us that attendance at elite institutions is no guarantee of wisdom. <\/p>\n
Jennifer Ring Berkeley, Calif. The writer is professor emerita of political science at the University of Nevada, Reno, and a co-author of Saving Public Higher Education: Voices From the Wasteland. <\/p>\n
To the Editor: <\/p>\n
Re Never Underestimate the Power of the Dinner Table, by Alex Prudhomme (Opinion guest essay, Dec. 27): <\/p>\n
In response to your informative essay, I refer readers to the excellent book Dinner With Churchill, by Cita Stelzer. Throughout his long life, Sir Winston was a master at bringing all sorts of people with disparate views to dine with him at various places and times of the day. Champagne, food, wine, brandy, his wit and, yes, cigars, were tools he used to break down barriers to policies he espoused. <\/p>\n
Joel Barad New Rochelle, N.Y. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Go here to read the rest: <\/p>\n
Opinion | The Supreme Court and Donald Trump - The New York Times<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" To the Editor: Re Barring Trump From the Ballot Would Be a Mistake, by Samuel Moyn (Opinion guest essay, Dec. 24): Despite the vast difference in our academic credentials (me: B.A. from Miami University, Professor Moyn: J.D. Continue reading