To the Editor:
Re “We’re Suddenly Living in a ‘My Wife Did It’ Moment,” by Gail Collins and Bret Stephens (The Dialog, Could 21):
Mr. Stephens goes on at size about why Justice Samuel Alito’s spouse has “the constitutional proper” to specific a “Cease the Steal” opinion by hanging a flag upside-down within the Alitos’ entrance yard, in addition to “an ethical proper” to specific her opinion independently of her Supreme Court docket justice husband.
Then, when Ms. Collins challenges the propriety of a political image on the residence of a justice who may sometime must determine on that very election’s validity, Mr. Stephens demurs with a light “OK.”
Mr. Stephens’s argument is deeply disturbing. Our Supreme Court docket justices are anticipated to keep up not simply the truth of no conflicts of curiosity that may affect their rulings, but additionally the “look” of no such conflicts.
To neighbors and now the nation, the flag made it seem that Justice Alito believes Donald Trump’s lies a couple of stolen election, and thus would rule in favor of Mr. Trump in associated circumstances. Blaming his spouse makes a sham of his personal accountability to not seem political.
No, a partner could not specific views in public {that a} justice is prevented from expressing. Had been that to be the case, all justices might encourage their spouses to broadcast opinions the justice is barred from saying. That manner lies insanity.
James Berkman
Boston
To the Editor:
Re “A Time-Honored Political Tactic: Throw Your Wife Under the Bus” (entrance web page, Could 20):
Justice Samuel Alito mentioned he had “no involvement whatsoever within the flying of the flag” supporting “the Massive Lie,” blaming it on his spouse.
Does he stay together with his spouse? Does he go to and from work and run errands? Did he see the “Cease the Steal” flag supporting “the Massive Lie” flying proper by his driveway? In fact he did! He’s not less than as complicit as his spouse.
Justice Alito is flaunting his contempt for ethics and propriety, and one might conclude that he additionally subscribes to the “Massive Lie.” In fact Justice Alito ought to recuse himself from any selections involving Donald Trump or the presidency. Or higher, he ought to resign.
Peter Larson
Milwaukee
To the Editor:
Re “There’s No Sense of Shame at the Supreme Court,” by Jesse Wegman (Opinion, Could 22):
Mr. Wegman claims that federal recusal law requires Justice Samuel Alito to disqualify himself as a result of he didn’t take down an inverted flag that his spouse hung since his “impartiality may fairly be questioned.”
But everyone knows that the late nice Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn’t disqualify herself from cases involving Donald Trump after calling him a “faker,” despite the fact that her impartiality could possibly be questioned.
Michael J. Broyde
Atlanta
The author is a professor at Emory College College of Regulation.
To the Editor:
Crucial commentary on the wives of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas is definitely effectively justified. However the criticism can not cease with them. Justice could also be blind, however absolutely the justices themselves can not declare to have been blind to their wives’ actions or to counsel that they’d no capability to restrain them.
Neither is feminist independence related: The identical crucial for restraint would apply equally to the husbands of our feminine justices.
Douglas M. Parker
Ojai, Calif.
An Originalist Method to the Taco Court docket Case
To the Editor:
Re “Is a Taco a Sandwich? No. Yes. Even the Law Is Divided on It,” by Tejal Rao (Critic’s Pocket book, entrance web page, Could 21):
I savored the article in regards to the sandwich vs. taco feud in Fort Wayne, Ind. And I concur that the taco is de facto sui generis. However the author missed a scrumptious alternative to expound upon an originalist strategy to this case, by which a restaurateur sought to open a taco store in a shopping center the place solely sandwich outlets have been permitted.
One of many first written mentions of the sandwich is believed to be in the journal of the English historian Edward Gibbon. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “sandwich” implies two slices of bread between which a savory meat of some kind was positioned. Against this the taco’s basis is a round tortilla with no high or backside, thereby presenting a authorized conundrum.
But when we study the story in regards to the origin of the sandwich — to offer nourishment whereas the Earl of Sandwich sat hour after hour on the playing tables — I imagine the case was appropriately determined {that a} taco is certainly a sandwich. Offering a quick chunk whereas dazed by mall buying is certainly akin to that authentic function.
Lois R. Fishman
Washington
The author is a lawyer.
To the Editor:
The ruling by an Indiana decide {that a} taco is a sandwich delivered to thoughts an 1893 case that reached the very best court docket within the land. (That’s judicial court docket, not meals court docket.)
In Nix v. Hedden the Supreme Court docket confronted the query whether or not below U.S. import and tariff legal guidelines a tomato was a fruit or a vegetable. Though acknowledging that botanically the tomato is a fruit, the court docket dominated unanimously that in frequent utilization, a tomato is a vegetable.
“Botanically talking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, simply as are cucumbers, squashes, beans and peas. However within the frequent language of the individuals, whether or not sellers or customers of provisions, all these are greens.”
Lawrence P. Katzenstein
St. Louis
The author is a lawyer.
Republicans Deny Advantages
To the Editor:
Re “House Defunds L.G.B.T.Q. Centers by Banning Earmarks for Nonprofits” (information article, Could 15):
As soon as once more, Republicans and so-called conservatives are keen to disclaim advantages for their very own constituents with a purpose to deny advantages to teams they disapprove of.
They might quite not enable federal funds for Y.M.C.A. or Y.W.C.A. branches, meals banks, Boys and Women Golf equipment, or work pressure coaching, amongst different teams which have obtained earmarks previously, just because they don’t wish to additionally enable any federal funds to go to teams supporting L.G.B.T.Q. individuals.
It’s shameful past perception.
Sonia Jaffe Robbins
New York
Equinox or Fairness?
To the Editor:
Re “Could Equinox’s New $40,000 Membership Really Help You Live Longer?” (Properly, nytimes.com, Could 7):
Healthspan — that’s, having a more healthy, not simply longer, life — is a vital objective to pursue. Most individuals wish to obtain good well being and to maintain it so long as potential. What’s disappointing in regards to the article is its disregard of the ever-widening hole to attain good well being between the common American and people with the means to afford a $40,000 health club membership.
For the common American, the hole in years between healthspan (wholesome years of life) and lifespan (complete years lived) is 9 years, and it’s even bigger for Black and Latinx People with continual illness burdens. As a society, we are able to put money into extra equitable prevention and handle social determinants of well being so that every one of us have a greater likelihood at extra high quality years of life. That is good for everybody — on the health club or not.
Ann Kurth
New York
The author is the president of the New York Academy of Drugs.