Letters to the Editor — Immunity Decision, City Affairs, Death Penalty, Debate

Back to the dishes

Subject: “Judge: Immunity from official acts – Court rules 6-3 that former US presidents enjoy broad protection from prosecution,” news report from Tuesday.

To my friends on the political right and to my friends on the political left, I offer this warning: Before we all get upset about this Supreme Court decision, let’s pause for a moment and understand what was and was not in the decision.

1. The Court not say presidents are immune from criminal prosecution.

2. The Court not say that former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for his actions on January 6.

3. The Court did state that presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts performed in the exercise of their core constitutional duties.

4. The Court was bound by its decision by the Constitution.

5. It is now up to the courts to examine the facts and decide whether Trump’s actions on January 6 were “official acts carried out in the exercise of central constitutional duties.”

Chip Field, Dallas

Courts as weapons

Our Supreme Court now views the law of the land through a political lens. The blindfold that stands for fair and impartial judgment based on constitutional law and precedent has been removed.

Presidential immunity from prosecution for “official acts” he performs as president seems right. Courts are often used as a criminal justice weapon to damage re-election chances or remove someone from office. It has become impossible to distinguish evidence of actual crimes from a prosecutor’s use of the political alignment of the court (and jury) to increase his chances of getting a desired result.

Unfortunately, this behavior is starting in our legislature. I’m not sure I’ll live to see another Congress. not file a motion to impeach the president. Impeachment motions are filed by both sides in revenge.

The misuse of the courts to harm one’s opponent is certainly nothing new, but it seems that this practice has become so commonplace and the public so disillusioned that it can no longer believe that the courtrooms are not being misused for these purposes.

Gary B. Strong, Fort Worth

Extension of the business ban

Subject: “Back of the Code of Ethics – Beware of changes to Dallas City Hall’s already lax ethics rules,” Monday’s editorial.

Similar to the concept of “don’t commit a crime if you can’t serve the sentence,” I would suggest that the Morning Newsis a wise opinion, and Councilman Omar Narvaez is wrong when he says that a one-year ban on doing business with the city after serving on a committee is too harsh a rule for committee members.

As you noted, these committees have a lot of influence over the council, and it is better to dilute the relationship for at least a year. If it were up to me, the council, which is much more powerful, should be barred from doing business with the city or representing anyone before it for two years.

The council members ran for these offices and were elected to represent us. They had a duty in doing so, and to do business a year and a day later is undoubtedly to use their contacts in the city. That is bad for the citizens of Dallas.

Gary Lawson, Dallas

Delays are cruel

Subject: “Deep-six death penalty” by Donald Frank Dillard, Tuesday Letters.

The reason for retaining the death penalty is not to deter crime, but to ensure that the same person cannot commit a murder again. It also provides the families of the victim and the murderer with a chance to find closure.

What needs to be reconsidered is the long period of time between conviction and execution. This is cruel for the families of the victims and murderers and for me, the taxpayer.

Frank M. Wagnon, Southlake

Real problems

As for the Trump-Biden debate, according to the letters published by this newspaper and the statements from the left, the Democrats’ strategy now appears to be to attack Trump for all his lies, which is quite bold considering what is coming from President Joe Biden.

Anything, absolutely anything, to keep people from hearing and thinking about the real problems: the devastating border crisis, the resulting security problems and financial burden; inflation that continues to hit the middle and lower classes hard; persistently high energy prices; conflicts abroad.

Talk about anything but the problems, the president’s record and his declining mental capacity.

Donald Reichert, Garland

Putting the country first

The country and the world witnessed a turning point in the U.S. presidential election as the first debate began. President Joe Biden had poor poll numbers beforehand, and it is irrational to think that will improve. This is not the time for him and the Democratic Party to sugarcoat what happened by blaming the poor performance on staff preparation, a cold, or simply a bad debate.

Never mind that Biden was full of energy at a campaign rally the next day. This is a 24/7 job, and he is clearly not up to the job today, let alone in two or four years. Biden needs to step down and put the country before himself, rather than destroy his legacy. A new candidate will have the full support of the Democratic party machine and will likely also win the support of the independents and undecideds who are expected to influence the election.

It won’t be an easy, clean, or fun process, but true leaders do what’s right, not what fills their ego or their wallet. At least one of the candidates should do that.

Bill Moss, Frisco

We welcome your opinion in a letter to the editor. Read the guidelines and Send your letter hereIf you have any problems with the form, you can send it by email to the following address: [email protected]