Has the U.S. Supreme Court gone rogue? Do the justices now decide cases on their personal whim irrespective of common sense, precedent, law and history?
I get that they threw 50 years of law and precedent under the bus when a majority decided that Roe v. Wade was “bad law” from the beginning, and thus voted to overturn it.
Now, the justices are struggling with the issue ofabsolute presidential immunity. During arguments last week, they basically asked: Can a president do anything while in office and not be criminally prosecuted? Or, can he only be impeached?
Ignoring the pardon of Richard Nixon undertaken by President Gerald Ford, let’s examine a world standard that the United States helped create, namely at the Nuremberg trials and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) “Tokyo Trials.”
We participated in both and actually approved the creation of the IMTFE by General Douglas MacArthur. In each case, leaders of a country were tried, convicted, and, in some instances executed.
But, no one tried a German soldier for killing an American soldier or vice versa. Such actions were recognized as part of the insanity of war.
The higher-ups were tried because what they did was not a legitimate part of a war. It was criminal. Arguments of immunity or that a defendant was “just following orders” were not accepted.
Do our justices now want to say: “We see no precedent. Oops, those post-World War II trials were ‘bad law’ from the start.”
Should common sense be thrown under the bus with George Washington, who established a host of precedents to limit presidential powers? His rationale was that a president should not be a king, the only ruler who could have the trappings of “absolute immunity” — until he was overthrown.
Richard Plaza, Whiting
Trump makes the best of limited campaigning
In the ultimate political miscalculation, the Democrats’ strategy of keeping former President Donald Trump in New York City to face criminal charges is misfiring.
Trump isforced to campaign for the presidency in the Big Apple on weekdays. He is talking about crime, immigration and inflation. And, it is resonating. He recently visited a bodega in Harlem, and drew a large, enthusiastic crowd, including many Hispanics.
The president of Steamfitters Local 638, Bob Bartels, a lifelong Democrat, told “Fox & Friends,”he is supporting Trump, and claims two out of three of the union local’s 5,000 members are doing the same.
Can Trump gain New York State’s 28 electoral votes? He is making lemonade out of lemons.
Peter Leone, Bloomfield
Conflicts of interest seen in Rutgers’ governance
A recent article about Rutgers University’s upcoming commencement speakers ends with the statement, “William Best, chair of the Board of Governors … will receive an honorary doctor of laws degree at commencement.”
That’s interesting because it was this very board that voted to grant him the honorary degree. And, Best chaired the meeting where this occurred.
It would be one thing if this were a one-time occurrence, but it was not. In April 2021, the board voted another of its members,William Tambussi, onto the Rutgers allied Camden Board of Directors. Tambussi, who serves an attorney for Camden County powerbroker George Norcross III and various Democratic Organization interests, voted himself for this appointment. Amazingly, according to a Rutgers University Senate conflict of interest report, the vote for this position occurred without naming Tambussi as the candidate. Even when a journalist asked, the board refused to name the candidate.
Similarly, in July 2023, Board of Governors member Mark Manigan, the CEO of RWJ Barnabas Health (RWJBH), voted in favor of the merger of its medical school with Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, declining to recuse himself. A similar issue regarding RWJBH came up in February.
To paraphrase Ian Fleming, one is an accident, two is coincidence, three is a pattern. We’re up to four already: is it time to take notice yet?
Troy Shinbrot, professor, Rutgers University, Piscataway
Note: The writer is a member of the Budget & Finance Committee, Rutgers University Senate. This letter represents his personal views only.
The trouble with shooting an intruder
Regarding the article, “Poll finds mixed views on firearm ownership,” based on a recent survey that showed a split in opinions when New Jerseyans were asked if having a gun is at a residence is helpful during a home invasion:
The problem with this is that different situations dictate different responses when one has a permit to have firearms at their residence. There must be specificity about when that gun owner can use the firearm legally to shoot at someone.
Can a homeowner shoot the intruder, or must he or she warn the intruder that they are armed? Obviously, the resident may have no knowledge of whether or not the intruder/intruders are armed. If an intruder is wounded or killed, is the homeowners subject to arrest?
Bob Barrett, Clark
Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.
The Star-Ledger/NJ.com encourages submissions of opinion. Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow us on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and on Facebook at NJ.com Opinion. Get the latest news updates right in your inbox. Subscribe to NJ.com’s newsletters.
