Readers Write: Presidential immunity, Sen. Nicole Mitchell

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

•••

The vast majority of us did not graduate high school en route to careers in nuclear physics. But most of us learned the rudiments of good citizenship and retained from our youth the notion that justice must remain explicitly free of partisanship.

It was therefore jarring to see the Supreme Court take up former President Donald Trump’s immunity case with apparent intent to shelve the case of the special counsel until after the presidential election ... if ever.

And we wonder how the highest court can proffer hypothetical legalisms affecting future presidents when the case at hand of demonstrable election obstruction is almost completely ignored. Perhaps the constant homage to the court’s stature permits it to place a rather billowy “rule for the ages” in front of the manifest danger at its feet. Perhaps it is time for some external checks on this ponderous body.

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are not infallible. The American people demand of them neither omniscience nor transcendent wisdom. But we do demand more than a modicum of conscionable deliberation in our behalf. And when decisions come down from these curates of the American judicial system, we have a right to expect their parity, prudence and good faith.

None of this is forthcoming from the majority of the justices in this case. They would do well to remember that the American people are not stupid.

•••

It’s bad enough that the Supreme Court even entertained the possibility that a president is immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office, but then most of the conservative judges were more focused on hypothetical scenarios of crimes a future president might do instead of addressing the real actions that already took place. The reason they had convened. That Donald Trump incited an insurrection. It’s time to change the name of the Supreme Court from the Roberts Court to the Trump Court.

Doug Williams, Robbinsdale

•••

I am not an attorney or a judge, nor do I play either of these on TV, but come on. Did Justice Samuel Alito just argue that immunity is needed to make sure an incumbent president has reason to “leave office peacefully”? Trump didn’t leave office peacefully, which in this argument implies that he had no immunity. Therefore, there should be no debate on this subject? Immunity isn’t an issue if a crime isn’t committed. Richard Nixon, our closest comparable case, did commit a crime, realized he had no immunity and yet found a way to leave office peacefully.

Dan Wolfe, Edina

•••

In the Supreme Court hearing the other day on Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, Justice Alito expressed fear that without that shield presidents could engage in reprisals against their predecessors that would undermine a “stable, democratic society.”

The jurist’s concern seems misplaced because it begs the question of the effect on stability and democracy if a president has unrestricted ability to break the law without recourse. That threat looms particularly large because defendant Trump has pledged, if elected, to prosecute and jail the current president and his other rivals, political and otherwise.

Marshall H. Tanick, Minneapolis

The article ”Mitchell makes return to State Capitol after arrest” (April 30), about state Sen. Nicole Mitchell, was hard to read. Although I do not support her decision to handle the situation in the way in which she did, she is entitled to due process.

What really gets me are the comments made by Republican Sen. Steve Drazkowski: “Her actions have brought the Senate into dishonor. Her actions have brought the Senate into disrepute.” Honestly, maybe Republicans need to look in the mirror when it comes to everything Donald Trump has done. This makes no sense. We should have one standard and one standard only when it comes to politics and the rule of law. No one is above the law! This should not be a Democratic or Republican thing, where it counts for one party but not the other. This is an American standard, which brings trust, respect and understanding to everyone on the same level.

Our elected officials are role models. Let them fight their battles, but they must be fought legally where they follow the law and uphold the very laws they are putting in place.

Joanie Clausen, Golden Valley

•••

Sharon E. Tornes, Woodbury

•••

Should we be surprised that the Republicans in the Minnesota Senate are outraged by Mitchell continuing to vote? Several Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature have been arrested for DWIs and remain as voting members of the Legislature.

I would be much more comfortable with a senator who broke into a relative’s house to retrieve some personal items than legislators who endangered others while driving while intoxicated. Mitchell didn’t put anyone’s life at risk.

Timothy DeJonghe, Garrison, Minn.

In 2022, Democrats came to control all of state government promising to enact a unifying and moderate “One Minnesota” agenda. It was an attractive slogan to an electorate exhausted with divisive and unproductive partisan politics.

But once in power, the DFL trifecta quickly ditched that mantra and veered hard to the progressive left. And that tact has included a persistent disregard for the fundamentals of law and order — the necessary bedrock of any functional self-governing society. And on Monday, Minnesotans saw two powerful pictures depicting the dreadful results.

At the Hennepin County Government Center, state trooper Ryan Londregan was hauled into a hearing on criminal charges resulting from his simply performing the dangerous job of protecting us that Minnesotans tasked him with (”Support, dissent for state trooper,” April 30). Shameful.

At the State Capitol in St. Paul, DFL Sen. Mitchell, who is facing credible and felonious burglary charges, was invited back on the Senate floor and greeted warmly by her Democratic colleagues in order to cast the deciding vote on critical and controversial legislation. Disgraceful.

One need not be a lawyer to recognize the severe injustice of these two images. Minnesota has not done well under one-party rule. Voters here have a chance to change that in November — and we should.