Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
This Fourth of July, could Americans ever consider giving ourselves a special birthday present? Here's the gift: Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump step down as presidential candidates but can remain as advisers and influential figures. In return for this act of goodwill, all lawsuits against them and their families would be dropped. Both political parties would have some time to offer a new presidential candidate. Imagine the gift of a fresh choice and renewed hope for our nation.
Biden has served our country with dedication, but concerns about his leadership and health have created uncertainty. It's time to consider a leader who can fully engage with the challenges of today and tomorrow. Likewise, Trump, with his strong influence, has been a polarizing figure. His potential return brings fears of further division and vindictive actions. Let's honor their contributions while recognizing the need for fresh leadership.
No more debates that feel like reality TV gone wrong. No more midnight tweets that make you question the very fabric of our democracy. Instead, we give both parties time to submit new candidates who will be voted on in November, as scheduled. A fresh face, similar ideas, but a chance for genuine discourse and progress, which we so need at this time.
This is not just a whimsical idea but a call to action for sanity and civility. We are better than this. How do we take a bold step and demand better from our political system? Let's show the world that America is nimble enough to figure this out quickly and stay on track for a November election. No Biden, no Trump, all legal cases dropped. We must be able to come up with better and move on and focus on building a brighter future for this great country.
A concerned but hopeful American,
John McCarthy, Eden Prairie
THE DEBATE
Have Biden's advisers met Trump?
Given that everyone knows how Donald Trump will answer questions on myriad topics with half-truths and outright lies, I am befuddled and appalled that President Joe Biden's team spent so long prepping him for the debate on policy details. When Trump denied having an affair with Stormy Daniels, Biden simply needed to say, "You say you hardly barely knew her and never had sex with her. Yet you paid her $130,000!" Interesting. Or, with regard to COVID, Biden simply should have said, "So when you got COVID, why did your physician send you to Walter Reed? Why didn't you just take some bleach? That is what you told others to do." When Trump spoke of third-trimester abortions, Biden's response should have been, "Do you personally know anyone who has had to make the gut-wrenching decision to have one? I am assuming no, because if you did you wouldn't continue to spread such ugly lies!" Given that Trump said in all caps on Truth Social, "I LOVE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PRIVATE SCHOOLS, AND MANY OTHER PLACES, FOR THAT MATTER. READ IT — HOW CAN WE, AS A NATION, GO WRONG???" Biden needed to, at some point, share that quote and then say, "If you love the Ten Commandments, why do you break all of them?" And then should have added, "I'll give you my 2 minutes. Recite them for us."
This is how Biden and his team needed to debate Trump!
Roland Hayes, Shoreview
PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY
SCOTUS wanders far afield
The U.S. Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity is an unfortunate example of what can happen when the court tries to decide issues that were not presented by the exact case before it. It would have been more prudent for the court simply to have said that official acts are immune, but what is alleged by the prosecution in the Jan. 6, 2021, case would not qualify, if proven, to be official acts. The court unfortunately went further to state evidentiary boundaries that are most troublesome.
Assume the following scenario. Assume that Donald Trump, during his presidency and on Jan. 2, 2021, sent a memo to the Department of Justice directing them not to prosecute any of the Proud Boys' clan, who Trump thought may try to assault Capitol police on Jan. 6, and who may try to break up the election certification proceedings. And assume further that Trump also sent a memo to one of his staff that they should notify the Proud Boys by phone, that he, Trump, had directed the Department of Justice not to prosecute the Proud Boys for such conduct. And then assume that the Proud Boys proceeded to attack the Capitol on Jan. 6. And assume also that Trump also did all the other promotions that he did to cause the Jan. 6 assembly.
Should the evidence of Trump's communications with the DOJ and to the Proud Boys through his staff be excluded from evidence in a criminal case charging him with obstruction of an official proceeding, or a similar offense? That evidentiary directive appears to be what the Supreme Court has directed. That is one of the dangers of what happens when the court tries to decide more than what the case before it required to be decided.
Thomas W. Wexler, Edina
The writer is a retired judge.
•••
Not since Dred Scott v. Sandford has the Supreme Court rendered a decision of such grievous error, moral corruption and willful ignorance. Not since Roe v. Wade has the court discovered a principle in the Constitution of such breathtaking implications that was nowhere clearly stated in the document and had never been previously found. It can be argued whether the Scott decision hastened the Civil War or merely demonstrated its inevitability. In much the same way, future historians will argue whether Trump v. United States hastened the end of the republic or merely reflected its inevitability. Regardless, they will easily mark this decision as the event horizon from which, once crossed, there was no return. Ironically, it is just as likely, perhaps more so, that the ultimate presider over the fall of the republic and transition to "Pater Patriae" will be from the left wing rather than the right wing.
James Klas, Bloomington
•••
The liberals on the court expressed concern in their dissents about possible actions a future president (read: Trump) could take with the new immunity ruling. Mentioning assassinations, bribery, etc., the dissenting statement declared that under the new ruling it was all possible and possibly legal. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in response, "The dissents' positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution's separation of powers and the Court's precedent and instead fearmongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President 'feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.'"
The way I see it, Trump's behavior and speech in the past leads many of us to believe these hypotheticals are in character for the man and entirely possible if there are no adults in the room to stop him, as we had in his first term. I doubt he will be as liberal in choosing his cabinet members or his staff this time around. He will demand absolute loyalty and only a minimum of ethics. It is neither fearmongering nor paranoia when the reality is the man knows no bounds.
If he should be elected, I pray the other branches of government, with the stated separation of powers, will maintain control over his actions. If the other branches are GOP-controlled, I doubt that as well. GOP fealty to the man has been well demonstrated.
Harald Eriksen, Brooklyn Park
