Letters to the Editor | July 3, 2024

In the U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion giving Donald Trump broad immunity for official acts, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that immunity from prosecution keeps the executive branch from “cannibal[izing] itself, with each successive president free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next.” Since this has never happened in our history, the court’s conservative majority is adding a protection for the presidency that was never needed prior to Trump. Is the court offering a solution to a problem that never existed, or is it really providing immunity specifically for Trump and whitewashing his crimes? If Trump is reelected, will the decision protect Joe Biden from retribution? And here is the great paradox: Trump can claim that he is engaging in his official duties by going after Biden, through the U.S. Justice Department, for unofficial acts he committed while he was in office. The court has opened a can of worms.

George Magakis Jr., Norristown

The media reports on the presidential debate were overwhelmingly concerned with Joe Biden’s performance and missed opportunities, and only marginally dealt with the unchecked torrent of Donald Trump’s lies. That the two candidates are flawed is beyond question, but which flaws actually matter when it comes to governing? Will Trump’s constant lies, exaggerations, taunts, and personal insults help the nation? Or will Biden’s love of country and deeply embedded reverence for the truth be the necessary glue that holds the nation together?

The decision voters must make is to either put our faith in the man who will lie and tell us what we want to hear or trust the man who will tell us the truth, even when it may rub us the wrong way. Not all flaws are equal. Biden’s flaws are ones of stage presence and his astonished reaction to an unfiltered stream of preposterous lies. Trump’s flaws will send our precious nation down a slippery slope to oblivion. Trump and the MAGA GOP are fatally flawed. We embrace them at our peril.

Joe Sundeen, Yardley

I was flabbergasted The Inquirer opinion writers (in aggregate, at least) claimed President Joe Biden won the debate. Every other media source declared the debate a train wreck and dumpster fire for Biden. Liberal media organizations like the Washington Post and New York Times are calling for Biden to step down or face a brokered Democratic National Convention. Fundraisers are backing away, and Donald Trump’s cash advantage will continue to grow. I doubt that there will even be a second debate.

Trump is smart enough to know that if Biden continues to be the Democratic nominee, there is no reason to debate. Why allow President Biden a chance for redemption? Trump skipped the Republican primary debates because he knew he had the upper hand. With only four months until the election, the only way to derail Trump is to nominate someone with instant name recognition and broad appeal. While Michelle Obama has ruled out any interest in politics, she is the only viable candidate to take on Trump at this late date. Hopefully, she would accept the nomination as a truly patriotic endeavor to save the republic and American democracy.

Taylor McCormick, Drexel Hill

The headline to the recent Inquirer piece — “Most city employees will be without labor contracts next week if Mayor Parker can’t reach deals with unions” — is misleading. There is no crisis for city employees. In fact, Pennsylvania law makes public-sector labor contracts unlike any other contract with which you may be familiar: They never really expire. Instead, the government and the union are required to observe the “status quo” as it negotiates a new contract. There is a crisis, but it’s not the one the headline suggests. The problem is how Greg Boulware and other union officials take advantage of the status quo obligation, turning it into a one-way ratchet that slowly drains Philadelphia taxpayers. Knowing they have the benefit of the “expired” contract, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees will simply refuse to take less in negotiations, no matter what. Taxpayers — and ultimately the city of Philadelphia — are doomed.

David R. Osborne, senior fellow, labor policy, Commonwealth Foundation, Harrisburg, dro@commonwealthfoundation.org

The Inquirer reports that the extraordinary contralto Marian Anderson “secretly studied with white classical music singers” because they were afraid of losing business if it got out she was their pupil. That is patently untrue, as she studied with my great-uncle Giuseppe Boghetti, who absolutely had no fear of losing business. He was proud of it and promoted Anderson. Boghetti was born in Philadelphia Joseph Bogash, the son of an immigrant Jewish family from Poland. He changed his name to Giuseppe Boghetti so he would be accepted at the famous Milan Conservatory, where he studied with Giacomo Puccini.

When he returned from Europe, he opened voice studios in Philadelphia and New York and became the voice coach to the greatest singers of the time. In 1921, Lucy Langdon Wilson, principal of the South Philadelphia High School for Girls, arranged for Anderson to audition with Boghetti. Upon hearing her sing “Deep River,” he announced that he would make room for her in his studio right away.

It was Boghetti who entered Anderson in a contest where the winners would be invited to appear as soloists with the New York Philharmonic. Anderson won and the music critic of the New York Herald Tribune, Francis D. Perkins, described her voice as one “in a thousand — or shall we try ten thousand or a hundred thousand ...” Boghetti gave a lesson to Anderson one week before he died in July 1941. It was this deep relationship between a Polish, Jewish vocal coach and an extraordinarily gifted African American singer that is at the heart of this truly special Philadelphia story.

Carol A. Bogash, great-niece of Giuseppe Boghetti, Baltimore

I’ve spent the last seven years of my life on dialysis, which essentially performs the functions my kidneys no longer can. I’ve received dialysis treatments at different clinics across the nation, which rely on funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Unfortunately, CMS has not sufficiently increased reimbursement rates for health-care providers. For me, this has caused treatment issues, nurse shortages, and general frustration with a lack of resources. It’s not just dialysis; the agency’s neglect will only make life more difficult for patients and their caretakers across the country. Increasing wait times at emergency rooms reflect the current funding crisis.

In Pennsylvania, the average ER patient waits three hours to receive treatment. In other states, it’s even worse. With fewer staff and more patients relying on our health-care system, care will continue to decline. Demographic trends exacerbate the problem, as there will be more elderly Americans than children by 2035. Without CMS’s support, providers and their patients will continue to suffer. Let’s hope CMS steps up and increases reimbursements to health-care providers, including dialysis. That way, health-care facilities can hire staff and maintain an adequate level of care.

Kyle Matthews, Philadelphia

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 200 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.