A protest takes place outside the Supreme Court on July 1.

A protest takes place outside the Supreme Court on July 1. Credit: AP/Mariam Zuhaib

The Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity is deplorable. The ruling makes the president the only citizen to be above the law in criminal prosecution cases. It also changes the whole system of checks and balances [“Court’s checks out of balance,” Editorial, July 2].

A president can justify his criminal behavior by citing an official act to use extralegal means to destroy his opponents, use force in foreign and domestic disputes, and override national laws.

The president can rig the judicial system and use his attorney general to allow him to commit acts such as using violence to achieve his end. This decision expands the term “imperial presidency” into a frightening reality. Former President Richard Nixon, under presidential immunity, could have obstructed justice and committed perjury without consequences.

The American public should be outraged at the court’s action for eroding our democratic way of life. James Madison, the “Father of our Constitution,” warned that the foundation of our government is based on the division of power.

As a retired high school social studies teacher, I suggest people remember 19th century historian Lord Acton’s quote: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

— William Lemmey, Astoria

I am amazed by the continued and sometimes vehement assertion that the Supreme Court has declared former President Donald Trump immune from prosecution. This misstatement is contrary to the express language of the decision, which reads:

“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.”

I have practiced law for over 50 years, have read many Supreme Court decisions and presented cases to the court. Who is relating the facts? It is the media’s responsibility to provide clarity and truth, not merely what people say.

— Michael Faltischek, Westbury

I was surprised to see no letters supporting the decision [“Court crowns the man who would be king,” Letters, July 5]. The court’s reasoning was based exactly on what it was designed to do by our Founding Fathers — to serve the best interests of America and most Americans.

We understand, of course, that there will always be opposition to nearly every court decision, and that is as it should be. We can never forget that elections have consequences. This November, the consequences will be more important than ever.

— Morty Grossman, Plainview

Each July 4, Americans celebrate our 1776 demand for an end of British royal control, without restraint, over our people. We waged and won a brutal eight-year war for this cause. Our independence was gained at the cost of extreme sacrifice and suffering.

Shockingly, that protection against leaders without restraint has been torn from us by a Supreme Court majority, displaying obscene partisanship, opting to do the bidding of Donald Trump, whose past actions and widely publicized future plans would flourish alarmingly in an unfettered environment.

As an attorney for 47 years, I believe that, like our brave ancestors, the American people must unceasingly resist this mortal threat to our precious democracy.

— David O’Brien, Mount Sinai

Rep. Nick LaLota wants us to believe that the Supreme Court’s decision “is a defeat for politically motivated prosecutors,” in that it will reduce the role of politics in the courtroom [“Lawmakers split on immunity,” News, July 2].

On the eve of the anniversary of America’s declaring its independence from a king who claimed British law did not apply to him, six current self-avowed “originalists” and “conceptualists” — after delaying for more than five months to decide — invent a doctrine of presidential immunity doing precisely what those embattled patriots of 1775-1783 were rebelling against.

Criminal acts taken while performing “core” functions are now not reviewable, effectively erasing the Constitution’s provision permitting presidents to be indicted for crimes. Two justices who, by any decent reading of judicial ethics, should have recused themselves did not. And yet LaLota praised their decision.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the court’s holdings “baseless” and “nonsensical.” Those may be the nicest words to describe the decision.

— Jack Feirman, East Northport

More reasons that the decision made no sense: Most congressional and constitutional limits on presidential power are now null and void, effectively making the president a de facto mob boss.

Next up will be state governors getting in on the act and seeking to receive similar immunity from state constitutions.

I wonder if the court realized that now the president can effectively order Supreme Court justices arrested on suspicion of corruption and then pack the court with loyal sycophants (hint, hint, President Joe Biden). The justices should have honored their oath at confirmation, noting that no one, including the president, is above the law.

— Gerry Ring, Old Bethpage

WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO JOIN OUR DAILY CONVERSATION. Just go to newsday.com/submitaletter and follow the prompts. Or email your opinion to letters@newsday.com. Submissions should be no more than 200 words. Please provide your full name, hometown, phone number and any relevant expertise or affiliation. Include the headline and date of the article you are responding to. Letters become the property of Newsday and are edited for all media. Due to volume, readers are limited to one letter in print every 45 days. Published letters reflect the ratio received on each topic.

YOU'VE BEEN SELECTED

FOR OUR BEST OFFER ONLY 25¢ for 5 months

Unlimited Digital Access.

cancel anytime.