To the editor: U.S. Supreme Court docket Chief Justice John Roberts has been a part of many rulings I wasn’t joyful about — the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and giving President Trump unbridled immunity, to call two (“The chief justice is to blame for the Supreme Court’s free fall,” March 21). That mentioned, I imagine he takes his job critically and really cares concerning the court docket and the nation. That’s what made this commentary decrying his laudable, crucial rebuke to Trump and the rabid proper for jump-starting the impeach-every-Choose-we-disagree-with bandwagon, so maddening and misguided.
Now that Congress is gutless and dominated by concern of a demagogue, and Democrats are floundering attempting to cope with nonstop assaults on actuality, decency and the legislation, solely the judicial department has stood as much as the unconstitutional, merciless, random actions of Elon Musk and Trump. Judges are making use of the legislation they usually, not the chief, are the arbiters of legality.
Roberts was utterly proper to name Trump and his flunkies on their lynch-mob mentality. This text may’ve been pasted collectively from extremist posts on X and is unworthy of the L.A. Instances. This paper has hosted the views and well-written insights of many conservative voices I don’t see eye-to-eye with, however respect. Hammer isn’t certainly one of them.
Fuzzbee Morse, Los Angeles
…
To the editor: Hammer’s rant didn’t current a conservative steadiness to progressive rhetoric. His bias was underscored by his parade of adjectives: “wildly-out-of-line criticism,” “mercifully,” “clumsy,” “ham-handed and self-aggrandizing,” “outburst” and extra. The one cognitive take-away is that Hammer simply doesn’t like Roberts.
Louis Lipofsky, Beverly Hills
..
To the editor: I submit that The Instances, no matter its goals, shouldn’t be standing up for steadiness when it publishes Hammer; it’s simply sacrificing credibility. Actually conservative voices could be welcome, however views like Hammer’s are hardly conservative and even logical. He stands with Trump within the president’s megalomania: overlook concerning the rule of legislation and due course of in summarily expelling non-citizens; regard anybody who disagrees with the president to be at fault and deserving of pursuit; court docket choices that hamper the president are primarily based on “paroxysms of frothing Trump-hatred.”
Roberts confirmed some backbone in reminding the president {that a} name for impeachment shouldn’t be an applicable response to an antagonistic court docket ruling. Hammer calls federal Choose James Boasberg a “rogue” and considers impeachment becoming. What public service is The Instances performing in giving such views a platform?
Grace Bertalot, Anaheim
..
To the editor: As soon as once more, Hammer is utilizing ridiculous, arcane references to make his level. His rationale to question Boasberg and why Roberts is “useless unsuitable” for suggesting that the treatment for rulings you don’t like is by attraction, misses the purpose. Boasberg argued that Trump’s utility of the Alien Enemies Act to deport lots of of Venezuelans — a rustic we aren’t at struggle with — was merely a method to keep away from due course of and sure unconstitutional. Roberts is true. If Hammer disagrees with him, he can attraction; his “remedial authorized lesson” is on the road.
Shawn Donohue, Thousand Oaks
