To the editor:
On “Suddenly We’re Living in a ‘My Wife Did It’ Moment” by Gail Collins and Bret Stevens (The Conversation, May 21):
Stevens asked why Justice Samuel Alito’s wife had the “constitutional right” and “moral right” to display a flag upside down in Alito’s front yard to express her “stop the steal” sentiment. He talked in detail about what he was doing. She is a Supreme Court justice because she expresses her opinion independently of her husband.
And when Mr. Collins challenges the validity of political symbols at the home of the judge who may one day have to decide the legitimacy of that election, Mr. Stevens calmly retorts, “OK.”
Mr. Stevens’ claims are deeply disturbing. Supreme Court justices are required not only to maintain the reality that there are no conflicts of interest that could influence their decisions, but also to maintain the “appearance” that there are no such conflicts.
To neighbors, and now the public, the flag gave the impression that Justice Alito believed Donald Trump’s lies about election fraud and therefore would rule in Trump’s favor in related cases. To blame his wife is to belie his own responsibility to remain politically invisible.
No, a spouse cannot publicly express an opinion that a judge cannot express. If so, every judge could encourage his or her spouse to air opinions that the judge is prohibited from uttering. There is madness beyond that.
james berkman
boston
To the editor:
Regarding “Old-fashioned political tactic: Throw your wife under the bus” (front page May 20th):
Justice Samuel Alito said he had “no involvement whatsoever in raising the flag” in support of the “big lie” and blamed it on his wife.
Does he live with his wife? Does he go to and from work or run errands? Does he have a “Stop the Steal” flag supporting “The Big Lie” right in his driveway? Did you see it fluttering? Of course he did! He is at least as much an accomplice as his wife.
Justice Alito has shown such a disdain for ethics and decency that one could conclude that he, too, supports the “Big Lie.” Of course, Judge Alito should not be involved in any decisions involving Donald Trump or the presidency. Or better yet, he should resign.
peter larson
Milwaukee
To the editor:
Regarding Jesse Wegman’s “The Supreme Court Has No Sense of Shame” (Opinion, May 22):
Wegman argued that federal law requires Justice Samuel Alito to disqualify him for failing to take down an upside-down flag that his wife raised because it “could raise questions of impartiality.”
But just because the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called Donald Trump a “fake” didn’t disqualify her from cases involving him, even if it raised questions about her impartiality. everyone knows.
Michael J. Broid
Atlanta
The author is a professor at Emory University School of Law.
To the editor:
Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas’s critical commentary on their wives is certainly justified. However, the criticism against them does not stop. The judge may be blind, but certainly the judge himself cannot claim to have been blind to his wife’s activities or to suggest that he was incapable of restraining his wife.
Feminist independence is also irrelevant. The same call for restraint applies equally to the husbands of female judges.
Douglas M. Parker
Ojai, California
A creative approach to taco litigation
To the editor:
Re: Is a taco a sandwich? No, yes. Even the law is divided on that” by Tejal Rao (Critics Notes, front page, May 21):
I read an article about the sandwich and taco fight in Fort Wayne, Indiana. And agreed that the tacos were really original. But I missed a great opportunity to detail the originalist approach to this case, in which a restaurateur tried to open a taco shop in a shopping mall where only sandwich shops were allowed.
One of the first written accounts of the sandwich is believed to be in the diary of British historian Edward Gibbon. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “sandwich” means some kind of savory meat sandwiched between two pieces of bread. In contrast, the base of a taco is a circular tortilla with no top or bottom, which creates legal challenges.
However, after examining the origin story of the sandwich, I believe the case was correctly made that the taco is indeed a sandwich because the Earl of Sandwich created it to provide sustenance while sitting for hours at the gambling table. Providing a snack while idling away your shopping at the mall is certainly similar to its original purpose.
Lois R. Fishman
Washington
The author is a lawyer.
To the editor:
An Indiana judge’s ruling that a taco is a sandwich was reminiscent of an 1893 case that reached the country’s highest court. (It’s a judicial court, not a food court.)
In Nix v. Hedden, the Supreme Court faced the question of whether tomatoes were fruits or vegetables under U.S. import duty laws. While recognizing that botanically the tomato is a fruit, the court unanimously ruled that in common usage the tomato is a vegetable.
“Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of the vine, just like cucumbers, pumpkins, beans, and peas. But in the common language of the people, whether they are food sellers or consumers, these are It’s all vegetables.”
Lawrence P. Katzenstein
st louis
The author is a lawyer.
Republicans deny benefits
To the editor:
Regarding “House defunds LGBTQ centers with ban on spending on nonprofits” (News article, May 15):
Once again, Republicans and so-called conservatives are willing to deny benefits to their own voters in order to deny benefits to groups they disapprove of.
They are not allowing federal funds to go to organizations that have received appropriations in the past, such as YMCA and YWCA chapters, food banks, Boys and Girls Clubs, and workforce training, simply because they don’t want to allow federal funds to go to them either. I don’t want to. Go to organizations that support LGBTQ people.
That is incredibly embarrassing.
Sonia Jaffe Robbins
new york
Equinox or Equity?
To the editor:
On “Can Equinox’s new $40,000 membership really help you live longer?” (nytimes.com, May 7):
Healthspan, or not just living longer, but healthier, is an important goal to pursue. Most people want to achieve good health and maintain it for as long as possible. What’s unfortunate about this article is that it ignores the ever-widening gap in health outcomes between the average American and those who can afford $40,000 in gym memberships.
For the average American, the difference in years between healthy lifespan (healthy life expectancy) and life expectancy (total years lived) is nine years, and for blacks and Latinos with chronic diseases, The difference is even bigger. As a society, we can give all of us the chance to live a better quality of life by investing in more equitable prevention and addressing the social determinants of health. This is good for everyone, whether you go to the gym or not.
Anne Curse
new york
The author is President of the New York Academy of Medicine.
