Letters to the Editor | April 20, 2026
Inquirer readers on a pair of congressional resignations and the prospect of “trial by A.I.”
Selective outrage
Two members of Congress resign after being accused of sexual misconduct. One presidential candidate was elected after being convicted of sexual misconduct. Make it make sense.
Richard Barsanti, Western Springs, Ill.
. . .
Several members of Congress, both Democratic and Republican, are now being accused of different types of improper and questionable activities and behaviors. There are loud calls, from both sides of the aisle, for these people to resign, and some are even stepping down before things escalate further. Why is Congress so troubled by the actions of its peers, yet turns a blind eye to the actions of the president, who has been accused of more wrongdoing than all of these people put together?
What will it take for Congress to start the process of removing a president who likens himself to Jesus (no doubt the man is delusional), uses profanity publicly, doesn’t know the answer to simple questions, can’t utter a sentence longer than five words without calling something or someone “stupid,” plans to have monuments built in his honor, wants to rewrite history, thinks he has the right to deface the People’s House, which he happens to occupy temporarily … the list goes on and on. So much upon which this country has been built has been slashed and burned because those who have the power to do so lack the courage to stand up and speak up for what is right. When the last straw finally comes, it may be too late.
Barbara Kotzin, Cheltenham
Programmed for justice?
Our justice system has relied on two paths for centuries: trial by jury and trial before a judge. Both remain essential pillars of American democracy. But as court backlogs grow and cases drag on for months or years, it may be time to consider a third, entirely new option — one that has not yet been part of our national conversation.
Imagine giving litigants the choice of a trial by artificial intelligence, offered only when both parties consent and only for cases where facts are clear, and stakes are limited. This would not replace judges or juries. It would simply add a modern, transparent alternative for citizens who want faster, lower‑cost resolution.
While AI has been used to assist judges or analyze legal data, no one has proposed a formal third lane within the justice system — one that combines human oversight with the speed and consistency of advanced technology. In an era in which we trust AI to detect fraud, read medical scans, and analyze contracts, exploring its role in appropriate legal disputes is a logical next step.
A justice system that evolves is a justice system that endures. It’s time to begin discussing a third option.
Steve Abramovitz, Cherry Hill
Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.