Letters: Supreme Court must eliminate appearance of being bought

Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

Supreme Court can’tappear to be bought

Re: “Roberts condemns threats to judicial independence” (Page A4, Jan. 2).

In his 2024 year-end report, Chief Justice Roberts laid out four areas of “illegitimate activity” which he says threaten judicial independence: violence, intimidation, disinformation and threats to defy lawfully entered judgments. He is missing the most important: judicial gifts. Nothing does more to erode judicial independence than when a judge accepts gifts from wealthy benefactors.

It is not just a question of judges recusing themselves from cases involving their benefactors. The rich use their wealth to reward influential people who further their vision for this country. A judge accepting these gifts knows this.

The judiciary’s gift rules have allowed the excesses of some Supreme Court judges to go unaddressed. If Chief Justice Roberts is serious about judicial independence, he should revise the rules to stem the wealthy’s influence over the judiciary. He and his peers must then rigorously enforce the rules upon themselves.

Colin DixonSunnyvale

High court’s ethicsare already in disarray

Re: “Roberts condemns threats to judicial independence” (Page A4, Jan. 2).

Though I acknowledge threats to judicial independence by others to be unacceptable, I charge the Supreme Court itself to be complicit in exhibiting unethical behavior.

Justice Thomas is known to accept elaborate trips and gifts, which may influence his decisions on serious matters because of who he is beholden to. Any gifts, when accepted, create a threat of bias in the honest judgment of matters before the court, thereby affecting all of us. Deny all gifts to avoid favoritism.

And the Supreme Court’s decision to declare the president of the United States to be above the law goes against the core beliefs of our forefathers. Nowhere is anyone declared to be above the law in our government. How can the Supreme Court announce the president to be a supreme being answering to no one?

Susan DillonMorgan Hill

Congress ignoreslaw on Jan. 6 plaque

Re: “Reminders of Jan. 6 attack fade in Capitol” (Page A4, Jan. 5).

Will history be rewritten, as it seems many Republicans want, to say that there was a peaceful protest at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021? I wonder if Donald Trump is so powerful even before he’s inaugurated that he is able to dictate something as minor as whether a plaque honoring the officers who responded to the violence will be placed.

It’s been almost three years since the law was passed. What is causing the holdup and what can be done to make sure the law is followed and the plaque is properly placed?

Marcia HulbergCampbell

Article misses wholestory on left turns

Re: “Can I pull into an intersection while waiting to turn left?” (Page B1, Jan. 3).

I learned that law in 1979 in driver’s education. What the article completely missed is that CVC21801A states, “The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left or to complete a U-turn upon a highway, or to turn left into public or private property, or an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction … and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with reasonable safety.”

That includes those of us turning right. I cannot count how many times there have been drivers who are so impatient and must turn right in front of me. I honk the horn and they give the deer in the headlights look.

Those who are making a left turn without a dedicated left turn traffic light will be found at fault for a failure to yield.

Michael McWaltersAlviso

Holidays fail to honoroccasion and King

I am writing to express my displeasure with one holiday and our response to another. The first day of the Gregorian year is a federal holiday. Why? Should it not be a day for giving our best, or “first fruits” (as Kwanzaa literally means) at the beginning of another astronomical cycle?

Martin Luther King’s Day is another federal holiday. Again why? Would not he be better pleased with businesses remaining open, perhaps a little longer, to advance his mission of racial justice? I often believe creating a holiday for a national hero creates an opposite effect: We dishonor them by doing what we want instead of doing what they want.

David WestSan Jose