Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Justice Clarence Thomas' most recent breach of ethical conduct illustrates that he might benefit from following a rule of conduct first articulated to me by a former court colleague ("Thomas: Trips did not need reporting," April 8). It is a thoughtful and wise rule called "The Rule of Holes." The rule is: Once you have dug yourself into a hole by acts of misconduct, ethical misbehavior or just plain stupid behavior, stop digging.

Thomas first dug himself into a credibility-and-lack-of-candor hole with his responses to Anita Hill's credible allegations. Over the years he has failed to make required conflict-of-interest and financial disclosures. Recently, he failed to separate himself from the possibly illegal acts by his spouse and ignored a basic rule of ethical conduct by failing to recuse himself from a case where there was a clear appearance of impropriety if he sat on the case. His most recent lapse in proper behavior has been shown by irrefutable evidence of his acceptance of and failure to disclose substantial financial gifts from a person with a potential politically partisan agenda regarding matters that may come to the court.

Thomas has dug himself deeper into an ethical hole by making the statement that he ran his most recently disclosed actions past the court. This explanation leads to one of two conclusions: Thomas did not adequately describe his actions, or, even worse, he impugns the court's integrity by implying that it is tone deaf to the concept of judicial ethics. Justice Thomas, please stop digging yourself further into the ethical hole you have dug for yourself and the court. You have already done enough irreparable damage to your reputation and the credibility of one of our most cherished institutions — the United States Supreme Court.

Paul H. Anderson, Inver Grove Heights

The writer is a retired Minnesota Supreme Court justice.

•••

Just when I thought the opinion of this member of the U.S. Supreme Court could go no lower comes news that Thomas accepted lavish gifts from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow. According to the Washingtonian, Thomas' good friend Crow also reportedly collects Adolf Hitler memorabilia, including a signed copy of "Mein Kampf," and has statues of infamous despots throughout his gardens. His gifts to Thomas included a trip worth $500,000 (one of many) and the use of a private plane.

Thomas' claim that he didn't think that he had to report such gifts is laughable, specious and misses the larger point. Ask any Little Leaguer if it is OK for the umpire to accept gifts from one of the player's parents, and she will give the correct answer that apparently eludes a justice with no ethical compass.

Kelly Dahl, Linden Grove Township, Minn.

•••

Let me get this straight — I have to report the hot dog that I bought for my military-contract client, and Clarence Thomas didn't know he has to report lavish trips halfway around the world? Really? Maybe he should have checked with his lawyer. Oh, wait, he is a lawyer! On the U.S. Supreme Freakin' Court! How stupid does he think we are?

Chris Hartnett, Minneapolis

ABORTION

Tighten rules on 'judge shopping'

The federal court system is contributing to the decline of the public's respect for the rule of law.

Recently, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Texas federal district court struck down the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the abortion medication mifepristone ("Vigilance needed on abortion rights," editorial, April 12). Prior to his nomination by former President Donald Trump, Kacsmaryk's record as a conservative Christian opposed to abortion was well established. In a practice known as "forum shopping" — but in this and other cases more accurately described as "judge shopping" — conservative groups have repeatedly filed lawsuits in the Amarillo division of the Northern Texas District, where Kacsmaryk is the only judge. The chief judge of the Texas federal district court should amend the procedure for assigning cases to limit this practice of judge shopping, which undermines respect for the rule of law.

Further, the U.S. Supreme Court should establish rules regarding the issuance of nationwide injunctions by district and appellate court judges. Without an established procedure and transparent guidelines, nationwide injunctions appear politically motivated, unfair to people outside the court's geographical jurisdiction and an abuse of judicial power.

Kacsmaryk's order brings the federal judiciary — and the rule of law — into disrepute.

Jon Steinberg, Minneapolis

•••

A recent letter writer wrote that the Supreme Court should "overrule Dobbs and restore us to abortion peace."

"Peace" for whom? Surely not the unborn babies!

James Patrick O'Connell, Minneapolis

•••

Of course there are some women who regret their decision to have an abortion ("Watch those 'myths,'" Readers Write, April 11). However, the vast majority of those who have had an abortion do not regret their decision. We all make decisions on countless major and minor life events. I doubt that anyone has gone through life without regretting a single decision. That is called free will. That is called freedom. Being an adult means accepting the consequences of our choices. Just because someone has regrets does not mean the government should step in and take away everyone else's right to make their own decisions.

Some politicians and judges seem to believe we are so fragile that we need the government to protect us from our own choices. Who do you think should make the major decisions in your life? You? Or the government?

Janet Werness, Minneapolis

MARY MORIARTY

Let's see the research

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty's decision to prosecute teens accused of a fatal shooting as juveniles with a two-year sentence raises questions ("The misapplication of neuroscience with regard to juvenile crime," Opinion Exchange, April 12). The first is her rationale that teen brains are not fully formed.

How much brain formation is needed to know right from wrong? What research does Moriarty cite? She needs to share that research and answer questions:

Who conducted the research?
What institution employed the researcher? Esteemed?
What was their motive, premise and purpose?
Who funded the research?
How recent was the research and the information used therein?
In which professional journal was the research published? Is it a credible journal?
Was the research duplicated elsewhere, independently and with the same results?
Is there research to the contrary, from credible sources?
Does that research prove teens don't know right from wrong?
What specific brain formation has not yet occurred that merits endangering citizens by the release of a killer or accomplice after two years?

I ask not just because I want justice served and citizens of Hennepin County safe. I also ask because I'm familiar with professors whose research to prove their pet premises is often debunked within a few years — if that. Such professors make names for themselves — until the research is later debunked.

Moriarty's decision may compromise the safety of Hennepin County residents. We deserve to examine the research upon which she bases her decisions.

Marjorie J. Simon, Minneapolis

•••

Just about every day there is an opinion piece criticizing County Attorney Mary Moriarty for not sending two juveniles to adult court in a murder case. Her approach is not just based on "neuroscience," but on several U.S. Supreme Court decisions releasing juveniles from adult prisons because juveniles are not as criminally responsible as adults.

None of the anti-Moriarty writers have explained why sending these teenagers to prison would do any good, except for making some people feel "justice" has been done. The commentary by Martha Holton Dimick was particularly unfortunate because it made her look like a sore loser ("Prosecution is a balancing act, but when a plea deal is wrong, we must respond," Opinion Exchange, April 11). So, please give it a rest. There are plenty of other problems in our world that deserve your attention.

John Stuart, Minneapolis

The writer is the former state public defender.