To the Editor:
Re “Supreme Court Halts Trump Push to End Birthright Citizenship” (nytimes.com, June 30):
Predictably, the Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship. Regardless of the legal justification for the court’s ruling, birthright citizenship is ultimately a moral issue, one that speaks to the better angels of the American people in their openhearted willingness to embrace as fellow citizens all those who are born in this nation — no matter the race, ethnicity or legal status of their parents.
President Trump constantly seeks to divide the nation and deprive people from what he deems lesser countries the opportunity to make lives for themselves and their families in America.
The Supreme Court’s majority rebuke of the president and his shameful xenophobia is welcome, but it will surely do nothing to dissuade him from using it as a wedge to advance his hostile and un-American immigration policies in the future.
Mark Godes
Chelsea, Mass.
To the Editor:
Re “Justices Broaden Presidents’ Sway Over Regulators” (front page, June 30):
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Slaughter marks a significant shift in the structure of the federal government in practice. As a citizen, I vote with an understanding of how my government works. If the court fundamentally changes that structure by shifting power from Congress to the presidency, those changes should not take effect until after the next national election.
The court has every right to interpret the Constitution. But when its decisions redefine the balance of power among the branches, voters deserve the opportunity to render their judgment before the new constitutional order becomes the one under which they are governed.
The Constitution begins with “We the People.” If the court is going to fundamentally alter the way our government functions, the people should have a chance to weigh in before it acts.
Jeremy Conway
Austin, Texas
To the Editor:
In the many discussions about the Supreme Court’s decisions expanding executive power, one basic fact seems overlooked: When voters elected Donald Trump to a second term, there were well-established precedents in place. Built into those precedents were protections voters may not have considered — mainly because they were so entrenched that there was no need to think about them.
Presidents would always be limited by the checks and balances in place since America’s founding. I believe that it is reasonable to wonder how voters would have cast their ballots differently had they known that the court would so radically undermine these safeguards and unleash a would-be tyrant upon us.
Stephen F. Gladstone
Shaker Heights, Ohio
To the Editor:
Re “Mississippi Law on Mail Ballots Upheld by Court” (front page, June 30):
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Watson v. Republican National Committee speaks directly to voter fraud, a top priority for President Trump and his loyalists. The decision exposes the Republican-sponsored SAVE America Act, touted as a shield for voter integrity, as a ruse. Under the guise of bolstering election security, the bill is engineered to suppress rather than protect.
Voter fraud has yet to emerge as the central rallying cry for Democrats, but if the fundamental right of democracy is to survive, it must. Affordability and health care must take a back seat. The true objective of the SAVE America Act is tightening Mr. Trump’s stronghold over the ballot box to sustain his hold on power.
Mr. Trump understands that a flipped Congress will effectively neuter his presidency. By halting the debasement of presidential norms and the dismantling of the Constitution, a new majority will assure accountability and the survival of the Republic.
Jane Larkin
Tampa, Fla.
To the Editor:
Re “Trump Request in Carroll Case Denied Review” (front page, June 30):
The Supreme Court’s decision to let stand the $5 million verdict in the writer E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit should remind Americans what this case was actually about. A jury found President Trump liable for sexually abusing Ms. Carroll in a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan and for defaming her when he later denied her account.
Even though the court declined to disturb that verdict, polls continue to show that roughly one-third of Americans still approve of President Trump. I wonder how many of those votes have forgotten — or never knew about — the conduct a jury concluded he committed.
This is not about partisan politics. It is about character. The presidency is the highest office in our nation, and the person who holds it should be worthy of the public’s trust.
Arnie Moskowitz
Sarasota, Fla.
