The Issue: The US Supreme Court ruling that lower-court judges are “likely exceeding” their authority.
The US Supreme Court has rightfully ruled that lower-court judges do not have the constitutional authority to block executive actions from taking effect nationwide (“Supreme rebuke of judges,” June 28).
While they did not rule on the merits of this executive order, I’m sure all that litigation will come in due time.
For the minority of the court to assume judges can overstep the powers granted to them by the Constitution is in direct conflict with their opinion that the Executive Branch is doing the same.
Also: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s opinion that she could trump President Trump does not align with her argument that the law applies equally to all. Her rare but stinging admonition by fellow Justice Amy Coney Barrett was well deserved.
Bo Madden
Jupiter, Fla.
On June 27, six Supreme Court justices removed another obstacle to Trump’s complete capture of governmental power.
They have removed the “federal” from federal judges, emasculating rulings by all lower courts that would limit a president’s power. The lower-court judges had been the last bastion of resistance to an imperial presidency, a k a a dictatorship.
Nicholas Molinari
Brick, NJ
Wow: Just after five months in office, the Supreme Court untied the hands of Trump’s administration, putting district court judges back where they belong.
This is as exciting to watch as “Yellowstone.” I can’t wait for the next episode.
Mike Santavicca
Yonkers
The Supreme Court ruling in favor of Trump basically states that if he tries to engage in unconstitutional acts, like his effort to end birthright citizenship, any effort on the part of lower courts to rein him in would amount to judicial overreach.
Yet the federal judiciary exists for the purpose of ensuring that neither the Congress nor the Executive Branch exceeds the powers granted to them under the Constitution.
To those who believe that the Republican majority on the Supreme Court would have still ruled in favor of a Democratic president exceeding his or her constitutional authority, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I would be happy to sell you.
Dennis Middlebrooks
Brooklyn
The familiar huddle of Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Jackson against all things Trump and in preference of their own social standards above the text of the parchment is tedious and wrong.
Leonard Toboroff
Ramatuelle, France
The Issue: Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa’s run to become New York City’s next mayor.
It is time for a dose of Curtis Sliwa as New York City’s mayor (“Sliwa stands tall,” June 27).
Like President Trump, he’s a proud American, a friend to law-and-order and an assassination-attempt survivor; so, maybe he’s lucky too and has got nine lives.
Robin Bredin
Ontario, Canada
Sliwa has been a New Yorker through and through. He is for everyone; just look at his Guardian Angels and knowledge of New York City and the great people who run it.
Give him and the city he loves a chance.
Bruce Altman
Miami Beach, Fla.
The lack of media coverage for Sliwa, who, for all practical purposes, is invisible and who the pundits have written off from having any chance of winning the election, hasn’t gone unnoticed.
Unfortunately, Sliwa is not being given the chance to get the GOP message out. The Post owes its readers some overdue publicity for Curtis; he’s been very unlucky so far.
J.J. Crovatto
Ramsey, NJ
Want to weigh in on today’s stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@nypost.com. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
Discussion about this post