To the editor: I take no comfort in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that President Trump is not a king and is therefore subject to the law, and neither should anyone else ("Now we know Trump can be subpoenaed. But will he comply?" editorial, July 9).
In U.S. vs. Nixon, the president's lawyer said before a U.S. District Court in 1974, "The president wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment." The Supreme Court eventually rejected this argument, and so it was a foregone conclusion that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s court today would rule the same way with Trump.
The Supreme Court could have ruled that Trump must immediately comply with the House subpoena for his tax returns and must turn over the records sought by New York prosecutors. Instead, the justices imposed a process that will take both matters past the upcoming election.
In both cases, this is a "best case" outcome for Trump. There was no possibility that the Supreme Court would rule the president is a king, so putting Congress back to a point where the issue either becomes moot or can be relitigated later is a win for the president. With the New York case, the president's goal was to make sure that no charges against him will be filed prior to the election, and the Supreme Court decision ensures this outcome.
So, I take no comfort. It was a double win for the president.
Thomas McGrath, Los Angeles
To the editor: We've lost sight of the most important reason for Trump to release his tax returns: He promised that he would do it.
How can we trust a person who has no respect for his word? Where I come from, a person's word is his most important possession. Trump said before the 2016 election that he would release his tax returns before the vote, yet he still has not done so.
As much as I fear a Joe Biden presidency, my distrust of Trump makes the former vice president the lesser of two evils.
Bill Serantoni, Thousand Oaks
To the editor: I am confused. Where in the Constitution does it say that the person running for president is legally required to disclose his tax returns? I cannot find it.
Can you please point out the section?
David L. McDaniel, Capistrano Beach