More light, less heat on court

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent questioning of attorneys on both sides in the Trump immunity case has provoked outrage, and personal insults against some justices, by our esteemed editor (Weekly News, May 1).

But the Court made it clear months ago that it may not give an outright “win” to either side, by framing the question before it as “whether, and to what extent,” a president is immune from criminal prosecution for acts while holding office. One appellate court said Trump was not immune from prosecution for any of the acts cited by prosecutors; Trump’s attorneys say he is immune for all of them.

Somewhere between those two positions is a distinction between a president’s official acts in serving the country, and acts serving his private interest. Where to draw that line has never been entirely clear, and where it is drawn will affect all future presidents of any party. No one should want it drawn differently depending on one’s political loves and hates. So the Court may take some time. If it wanted to serve Trump, it could simply approve his claim of blanket immunity, which the justices clearly do not think is tenable.

Our editor’s disquisitions on national politics sometimes seem ill-informed, generating more heat than light at a time in our history when more of the former is scarcely needed. I would love to see more of the latter.

Richard Doerflinger

La Conner