Does the new Supreme Court ruling mean presidents are kings? | Letters

Now that we have a King, will someone please remind me what all that kerfuffle in 1776 was all about?

Norm Howe

Ann Arbor

'We the people must demand,' that Congress finally act

I am outraged at the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing cities to outlaw homelessness without solving it. People don’t choose homelessness as a lifestyle; it is a symptom of the underlying problem of skyrocketing housing costs and increasing poverty.

By criminalizing poverty, this decision will exacerbate the problem without providing solutions. Instead of forcing people into jail cells or pushing them onto other communities, we should be investing in services that help people find a place to live. We should be throwing them a lifeline, not cutting the thread they are hanging by.

This decision demands congressional action. Congress must take immediate action to protect those among us experiencing homelessness and address the fact that rent is unaffordable for most Americans. Enacting a renter tax credit that offsets the high cost of rent is a good place to start.

This horrendous Supreme Court decision should be the catalyst for Congress to finally act on America’s housing crisis. We the people must demand it.

Sylvia Lewis

Rochester

'The darkest days of news in my lifetime'

The bought and paid-for conservatives on the Supreme Court have just changed the most important principle in our Constitution on behalf of one deranged, criminally convicted ex-president. I can hardly fathom this. Because of one single person facing multiple felony counts and already found guilty in civil court of numerous sexual and fraud charges, the executive branch's power has been expanded into the realm of royalty.

These have been the darkest days of news in my lifetime. I would never have dreamed a Supreme Court could go so terribly wrong and now we all have to live with its asinine decisions.

Americans should not have to stand for this. There has to be a way to redress this terrible situation.

Rob Hendrickson

Troy

More on the SCOTUS decision: Supreme Court presidential immunity ruling shakes up the Biden-Trump conversation

'It's imperative that we do not give Trump a second term'

Trump’s corrupt Supreme Court is out of control. SCOTUS just disallowed the Chevron deference. 40 years of policy, the Chevron deference allows experts at federal agencies such as the EPA, SEC, FTC and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to make regulations to protect us.

The Supreme Court just took the power from the people and put it in the hands of billionaires. This decision eradicates consumer protection, environmental protection and worker protection regulations just to name a few. This gives federal judges the power to decide regulations instead of experts in the field.

With at least a couple of Supreme Court justices likely retiring in the next few years, it's imperative that we do not give Trump a second term.

Willian McMullin

Oak Park

'Does it mean anything to swear to uphold the Constitution anymore?'

In all its 235 years of existence, the legal question of whether a former president has immunity from prosecution for official acts had never come before the Supreme Court.

That is until one Donald J. Trump upended the world as we know it.

The recent Supreme Court ruling would seem to suggest that the President is more like a king, or as Trump would like to fashion himself, a dictator. We used to have a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government but not anymore. Rock, Paper, Scissors meet Sledgehammer.

The extraordinary Supreme Court decision to grant immunity to the President for actions in office creates as Justice Sonia Sotomayor describes a “law-free zone” around the president, writing that the ruling "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law."

In her dissent, she gives the hypothetical that a president can now have SEAL Team 6 assassinate a political rival. Is there anything to suggest that this Supreme Court would NOT give cover for an autocrat like Donald Trump to do exactly that? The lesson for future presidents is that you can now abuse the official levers of power under the guise of presidential duty and therefore be subject to immunity.

Does it mean anything to swear to uphold the Constitution anymore?

John Dean, Nixon’s White House Counsel referred to the 1972 Watergate scandal, “Nixon would have had a pass” and that “virtually all of the evidence against Nixon” would have been off limits. This ruling jeopardizes the case that special counsel Jack Smith will bring against Trump for federal election interference and the events that led to the Jan. 6 insurrection. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote dissenting that the ruling constitutes a "five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance."

Of course, it’s Biden who resides in the White House now, not the convicted felon Donald J. Trump. Maybe Trump should be the one who is worried about this new expansion of presidential power.

Eddie Dee

Novi

More: Election denying Matt DePerno running for Michigan Supreme Court? Yeesh. | Opinion

'No one above the law'

Recent Supreme Court decisions, including the ludicrous opinion that presidents enjoy total criminal immunity for any “official acts” committed in office, have caused me to reflect on something that occurred many years ago.

Back in 7th grade in one of my classes, the teacher had everyone complete a write-in ballot to identify what each thought was the most noble of careers. My dad was a medical doctor, so on my ballot, I indicated this as the most noble of careers. The thinking in my 12-year-old brain was that doctors are involved in the business of saving and improving life – what can be more noble than that?

However, a clear majority of my classmates thought differently and instead voted for Supreme Court Justice as the noblest of careers. While I disagreed then (and absolutely would do so today!), my classmates’ thinking was that the Justices have the ability to impact (improve?) conditions for millions through their opinions, while a medical doctor generally impacts one life at a time.

Over the years I have thought about this episode, and for a while, the Supreme Court, in my opinion, seemed to live up to the high noble standard. For example, the unanimous decision during Watergate to force Nixon to hand over the tapes, including two Justices placed on the bench by that president. There have been other examples over the years, even the intellectual jousting over many years by Justices Ginsburg and Scalia. In general, there was a firm belief that no one was above the law, including the president. These were the good years.

Now, however, I believe we have a totally partisan Supreme Court. The court’s “conservative” majority has crafted decision after decision this year to benefit one man. These justices claim to be originalists and textualists. They used this thinking to reject bans on bump stocks in guns, for example, stating there was no historical basis for the ban because the founders did not address this. As if they had any conception of bump stocks in 1789! Our founders made clear their intention that there be no king in the US – yet today’s decision on presidential immunity basically gives the executive the total power of an 18th-century monarch to do whatever they want under the cloak of an “official act.” What a farce!

The good news is, if we all choose to exercise our power, we can consider all of this and vote to reject Trump in November and work to make right these wrongs.

Thomas Malone

Indio, California

This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Supreme Court rulings lend king-like power to president | Letters