U.S. chief justice could easily refute the partisan criticism contained in Hammer’s latest commentary
To the editor: U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has been part of many rulings I wasn’t happy about — the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and giving President Trump unbridled immunity, to name two (“The chief justice is to blame for the Supreme Court’s free fall,” March 21). That said, I believe he takes his job seriously and truly cares about the court and the country. That’s what made this commentary decrying his laudable, necessary rebuke to Trump and the rabid right for jump-starting the impeach-every-Judge-we-disagree-with bandwagon, so maddening and misguided.
Now that Congress is gutless and ruled by fear of a demagogue, and Democrats are floundering trying to deal with nonstop assaults on reality, decency and the law, only the judicial branch has stood up to the unconstitutional, cruel, random actions of Elon Musk and Trump. Judges are applying the law and they, not the executive, are the arbiters of legality.
Roberts was completely right to call Trump and his flunkies on their lynch-mob mentality. This article could’ve been pasted together from extremist posts on X and is unworthy of the L.A. Times. This paper has hosted the views and well-written insights of many conservative voices I don’t see eye-to-eye with, but appreciate. Hammer isn’t one of them.
Fuzzbee Morse, Los Angeles
…
To the editor: Hammer’s rant failed to present a conservative balance to progressive rhetoric. His bias was underscored by his parade of adjectives: “wildly-out-of-line criticism,” “mercifully,” “clumsy,” “ham-handed and self-aggrandizing,” “outburst” and more. The only cognitive take-away is that Hammer just does not like Roberts.
Louis Lipofsky, Beverly Hills
..
To the editor: I submit that The Times, whatever its aims, is not standing up for balance when it publishes Hammer; it’s just sacrificing credibility. Truly conservative voices would be welcome, but views like Hammer’s are hardly conservative or even logical. He stands with Trump in the president’s megalomania: forget about the rule of law and due process in summarily expelling non-citizens; regard anyone who disagrees with the president to be at fault and deserving of pursuit; court decisions that hamper the president are based on “paroxysms of frothing Trump-hatred.”
Roberts showed some spine in reminding the president that a call for impeachment is not an appropriate response to an adverse court ruling. Hammer calls federal Judge James Boasberg a “rogue” and considers impeachment fitting. What public service is The Times performing in giving such views a platform?
Grace Bertalot, Anaheim
..
To the editor: Once again, Hammer is using ridiculous, arcane references to make his point. His rationale to impeach Boasberg and why Roberts is “dead wrong” for suggesting that the remedy for rulings you don’t like is by appeal, misses the point. Boasberg argued that Trump’s application of the Alien Enemies Act to deport hundreds of Venezuelans — a country we are not at war with — was simply a means to avoid due process and likely unconstitutional. Roberts is right. If Hammer disagrees with him, he can appeal; his “remedial legal lesson” is on the line.
Shawn Donohue, Thousand Oaks
