To the editor: Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court has been involved in decisions I haven’t always agreed with, such as the reversal of Roe vs. Wade and the notion of giving President Trump unchecked immunity (“The chief justice is to blame for the Supreme Court’s free fall,” March 21). Despite this, I believe he approaches his role with earnestness and a genuine concern for both the judiciary and the nation. This is why I find the criticism in the commentary against his important and necessary rebuke to Trump and the far right’s rush to impeach any judge they dislike to be incredibly frustrating and off base.
With Congress currently too timid and intimidated by a domineering figure, and Democrats struggling to navigate the relentless assaults on truth, decency, and legal norms, the judiciary has been the sole entity standing firm against the unconstitutional and arbitrary actions of figures like Elon Musk and Trump. Judges are upholding the law, serving as the true arbiters of legality, rather than yielding to executive overreach.
Roberts rightly challenged Trump and his cronies for their mob-like mentality. The piece could just as easily have been cobbled together from extremist rants on social media and doesn’t match the standards of the L.A. Times. This publication has routinely featured viewpoints and articulate insights from conservative voices with which I may not always agree, yet can respect. Hammer is not among them.
Fuzzbee Morse, Los Angeles
—
To the editor: Hammer’s tirade fell short of providing a conservative counterpoint to progressive dialogue. His bias was laid bare through his use of adjectives like “wildly-out-of-line criticism,” “mercifully,” “clumsy,” “ham-handed and self-aggrandizing,” “outburst,” and more. The prevailing impression is simply that Hammer has a strong dislike for Roberts.
Louis Lipofsky, Beverly Hills
—
To the editor: The Times, whatever intentions it claims, isn’t upholding a balanced viewpoint by running Hammer’s pieces; it’s merely undermining its own credibility. Truly conservative perspectives would be welcomed, but Hammer’s views are neither genuinely conservative nor particularly rational. He aligns himself with Trump’s disregard for the legal process and portrays dissenters as wrong and worth pursuing, complaining about court decisions that don’t favor the president as rooted in irrational hatred of Trump.
Roberts did well to remind the president that impeachment isn’t an appropriate reaction to disagreeable court rulings. Hammer labeling federal Judge James Boasberg as “rogue” and suggesting impeachment as a suitable action is baffling. How does The Times justify offering a platform to such perspectives?
Grace Bertalot, Anaheim
—
To the editor: Once again, Hammer resorts to obscure and absurd comparisons to support his argument. His reasoning for impeaching Boasberg and claiming Roberts is “dead wrong” for asserting that the appeal process is the correct course for unfavorable rulings misses the mark. Boasberg asserted that Trump’s implementation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport hundreds of Venezuelans—a nation not at war with the U.S.—circumvented due process and was likely unconstitutional. Roberts is correct. Should Hammer disagree, his remedy lies in the appeal process; his so-called “remedial legal lesson” hangs in the balance.
Shawn Donohue, Thousand Oaks
