Donald Trump’s immunity claim

I am confident most of the justices resent Mr. Trump’s abuse of the federal judiciary for the past five years with all his frivolous cases, motions and appeals. To finally get rid of Mr. Trump, allow the court to decide what is a question of first impression. Second, have an election in which we find out whether the American people, despite his conduct, want Mr. Trump to be president. Next, have the federal trials. If convicted, he’ll be sent to jail for a long time, hopefully without riots in the street.

This path of regular order might start to heal the divisiveness in this country. If you have any doubt the chief justice and most on the court are on our side, notice how the court’s order frames the appeal only to cover official acts during his tenure in office. That’s not what Mr. Trump’s lawyers were seeking in the lower courts. In other words, the court has already decided Mr. Trump does not have immunity for his conduct at Mar-a-Lago, shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, ordering SEAL Team Six to kill a political rival or maybe even his role as a candidate in 2020, interfering with an election.

Be patient, trust regular order, trust the process, trust the people. We are winning this case.

James J. Graham, Falls Church

Ruth Marcus did an admirable job in her op-ed explaining the machinations of the once-respected institution of the Supreme Court as it wends its way through former president Donald Trump’s immunity claim.

However, I can sum it up in four words: The fix is in.

Cathy Clary, Afton, Va.

Ruth Marcus’s op-ed on the decision by the Supreme Court to accept the case for presidential immunity sets the table for further discussion and action. In reality, the concept of unbridled immunity by any elected official should be an slam dunk. The answer: Of course not! The considered reasoning by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is straightforward and embraced by legal minds on all sides of this “equation” — as is the clearly understood constitutional intent, unchallenged heretofore.

In the end, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has essentially lost control of the court, and the only honorable off-ramp is to resign his position, giving a message to a hardened far-right majority and salvaging the integrity of the court in the process.

A new Biden-appointed chief justice would not change the liberal-conservative dynamics, and it would ruffle feathers as the election cycle proceeds. But it might be the best way to salvage the institutional relevance and principled character of the judiciary going forward.

Raymond Coleman, Potomac

My heart sank, my gut contracted, and the words I was reading felt surreal. It was a visceral reaction to the news that the Supreme Court has decided to take up the question of presidential immunity in the D.C. case against the former president. At this point, the question is one of time, not law.

When given the opportunity to address the immunity question early, the court declined. We had to wait for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to first rule on the matter. The appellate court rendered a thorough, complete, well-reasoned, 57-page opinion. The law was clearly delineated. My expectation was that the Supreme Court would deny certiorari because it would not need to reconfirm the obvious: that a president does not have absolute immunity, and is certainly not shielded from prosecution if he arranges to have a political opponent killed.

Instead, the court appears to be complicit with the former president in helping him to employ his delay tactic. By granting cert and imposing lengthy time frames, it has, in practice, given an unfair advantage to the defendant. The court did not need to grant review because the appellate court decision was fully reasoned. However, even assuming that such further review was appropriate, the court certainly did not need to wait two months just to hold a hearing. The matter has been so fully briefed that it could be heard in two weeks. Also, it did not need to continue the stay in the trial court.

By helping to slow-walk this case, the court is denying the American people important information that they need to make an informed decision when they cast their votes in November.

Not fair. Not impartial. Not apolitical.

Dana Jacob, Springfield

Knowing well how former president Donald Trump’s claim to absolute immunity is antithetical to our foundation as a nation constituted to honor and abide the rule of law, the Supreme Court’s snail’s-pace treatment of Mr. Trump’s absolute immunity appeal will inevitably leave thinking Americans — and the rest of the world — believing that this Supreme Court is uncaring about the rule of law and the provision of impartial and swift justice when it is most required by our core principles and the public interest.

As Mr. Trump’s claim of absolute immunity for all actions of a sitting president is itself an intended and attempted insurrection against real rule of law, as absolute immunity would, if granted by the Supreme Court, literally terminate the rule of law’s application to Mr. Trump, the Supreme Court’s dilatory timetable for an absolute immunity claim will deal a permanent body blow to the reputation of the court as concerned with timely, impartial justice and the rule of law.

William August, Cambridge, Mass.