The Supreme Court and Trump’s Eligibility to Run

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday on former President Donald J. Trump’s eligibility to run for office.

To the Editor:

Re “Supreme Court Appears Set to Rule That States Can’t Disqualify Trump” (front page, Feb. 9):

In their arguments, Supreme Court justices expressed concerns regarding the possible consequences of Colorado’s attempts to remove Donald Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. What we did not hear was a discussion of the possible consequences of allowing Mr. Trump to return to office.

After moving his partner of 33 years to a nursing home, Joseph Drolet, a retired lawyer in Atlanta, said his fear of what would happen to her if he died or became disabled has abated.

Perhaps those consequences deserve at least equal consideration, in light of what the nation experienced on Jan. 6. I believe that is what the authors of the 14th Amendment had in mind.

James Culnan

La Crescenta, Calif.

To the Editor:

Chief Justice John Roberts is suddenly worried about the consequences of upholding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Where is his concern for the consequences of dispensing with Roe v. Wade, overruling environmental rules, privileging the Second Amendment over safety and destroying affirmative action?

One reason that many Americans have lost confidence in the Supreme Court — especially its conservative majority — is how its insistence on the letter of the law is dependent on the results they seek.

Ann Sparanese

Englewood, N.J.

To the Editor:

The 14th Amendment specifically prohibits those who have engaged in insurrection from serving as “elector of President or Vice-President.” Why would its authors ban insurrectionists from being electors, but allow them to actually be president or vice president? Clearly they wouldn’t.

Ross Brown

Santa Barbara, Calif.

To the Editor:

It would not be surprising if next week or soon thereafter we had two unanimous decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, arguably going in different directions.

From the oral argument on Thursday, it is certainly possible that both liberals and conservatives would agree to overturn the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court taking Donald Trump off the ballot, probably on an approach based on the concept that this is a federal question that must be litigated in federal courts. Otherwise, there could be a multiplicity of conflicting decisions.

On the other hand, the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that Mr. Trump did not have immunity from prosecution is so clear on the law and well written that it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would reverse it. Moreover, there is little insight that the court could add by issuing its own opinion. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would grant certiorari, or that there would be a dissenting opinion.

Two unanimous opinions, one favoring Mr. Trump and one decidedly unfavorable to him, would please Chief Justice John Roberts because it would give him cover for his assertion that the court is above politics.

Charles W. Murdock

Chicago

The writer has served as dean of Loyola University Chicago School of Law and as deputy attorney general for the State of Illinois.

To the Editor:

Re “The Supreme Court Should Get Out of the Insurrection Business” (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Feb. 7):

Akhil Reed Amar, in arguing for states to decide who can appear as president on the ballot under the 14th Amendment insurrection clause, oddly ignores the elephant in the room. If we ignore the reality that the deepest red states would likely empower their legislatures to define and decide who is an insurrectionist, and given that many of these states have already demonstrated anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic efforts, this will almost certainly lead to many of them barring Democrats from appearing on presidential ballots, casting them as insurrectionist under their state’s definition.

Without clear national standards, we do so at great peril to our democracy.

Mark Bierman

Brooklyn

Spouse and Caregiver

To the Editor:

Re “When Spouses Need to Hand Over Care,” by Paula Span (The New Old Age, Science Times, Feb. 6):

Using case studies, Ms. Span offers clarity and needed attention to the ordeals experienced by spouse-caregivers making decisions about long-term care for their loved ones with Alzheimer’s.

I was a spouse-caregiver for seven years as my husband slowly succumbed to the fog of dementia. My decision to seek a memory care facility for him came only two months before he died.

As the article points out, spouse-caregivers also need to attend to their own health issues — worsened by the stresses and anxieties of their situation. Also crucial are the love, help and emotional support from immediate family members when the spouse-caregiver must make those decisions about moving their loved one. It’s unfortunate, indeed devastating, when some family members withhold such support.

Patricia Hills

Brooklyn