newYou can now listen to Fox News articles.
The Supreme Court’s decision to revisit the issue of immunity in the Trump prosecution prompted the usual (and some not-so-usual) attacks on the court’s integrity. Some have called the judges complicit in the “insurrection” while others have accused them of “delaying” the appeal in order to push the case through after the election. MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin added that the delay in reviewing the issue is “very frightening for our country.”
The truth is that the claim that courts are slow is factually and historically untrue. In fact, compared to most cases, this is NASCAR’s pace for an institution focused on making good decisions quickly.
Some of the usual voices were quick to declare that once again the justices were being exposed as raw partisans. MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow declared the review of the issue “BS” and exposed “the insanity of the court.” Furthermore, she declared again that this action undermined the “legitimacy of the court.”
Rachel Maddow slams ‘dangerous’ rhetoric against Supreme Court: ‘Inflames anger’
Mary Trump, the former president’s niece, went even further: “With this corrupt decision, the United States Supreme Court simply reminds us that the insurrection was not a failure and was never over.” he declared.
Former Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said the review effectively “withholds important evidence that the American people deserve to hear.”
Elie Mystal, a regular MSNBC guest who previously called the Constitution “garbage,” offered a more cutting-edge view. As MSNBC host Alex Wagner clearly nodded in agreement, Mystal explained to viewers that this was simply Justice Clarence Thomas (and possibly Samuel Alito) trying to retire. . The theory goes like this. Thomas plans to postpone his appeal because he doesn’t want a Democrat to fill the seat. That would delay Trump’s trial, which would elect Trump and allow Trump to appoint. His successor will allow Thomas to go on endless retirement road trips in his RV. See, it’s that simple.
Of course, other explanations are possible. Some justices have serious concerns about the lower court’s ruling.
First, there are some obvious problems with the argument of “delay” in trying to push through the election and force a trial.
First, the court did not create a conflict with the election. Both state and federal prosecutors waited until just before the election to file charges for actions that took place nearly four years ago. They are now requesting expedited and, in some cases, abbreviated reviews, citing urgency.
Secondly, this problem has already been reduced and expedited. Special Counsel Jack Smith has repeatedly advocated denying President Trump standard appeal options and time to file a lawsuit. After the Supreme Court refused to effectively cut off Trump’s right to appellate review, the D.C. Circuit will allow Trump to apply directly to the Supreme Court rather than seek review from the full court in an en banc appeal. I put pressure on him. This standard en banc option was all but abolished by an order returning the mandate to district courts within days, forcing President Trump to argue his appeal while forcing the resumption of pretrial proceedings.
Supreme Court agrees to reconsider whether Trump is immune from prosecution in federal election interference case
Third, the court has expedited the matter. In reality, this is a much shorter timeline, meaning the court is fitting this case into the middle of a long and busy calendar. This gave political parties several weeks to fully summarize questions that had a significant impact on the constitutional system.
It usually takes several months for the court to accept a case. The court will hear arguments in April to allow the parties to fully explain the issue, and will likely issue a decision by June.
It has also been pointed out that there are cases in which courts have acted more quickly. However, there are important differences between these cases.
For example, Michael Waldman, director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, said that in 1974, the court considered United States v. Nixon “within weeks.” That’s a valid point, but it’s missing some relevant facts.
A district court issued a subpoena to Nixon in April 1974 to turn over the famous White House tapes. Then, in May 1974, a district court ordered compliance after Nixon refused. In granting the direct appeal, the court held oral argument on July 8, 1975, and rendered a unanimous judgment on July 24, 2975. That was about two months after the first appeal.
This is certainly a few weeks faster. However, the court was unanimous, and this was not an appeal by a criminal defendant. Although it was always possible that Nixon would be indicted (until Gerald Ford pardoned him after he left office), the case involved obtaining evidence in the Watergate investigation. Criminal defendants are afforded the highest level of protection and case review.
Critics also cite Bush v. Gore, which the Supreme Court decided within days. Once again, it’s true. I was a legal analyst and he covered that decision on CBS News, and it was at a rocket pace. But the court was considering the president-elect’s upcoming inauguration, not the upcoming election. The case was decided on December 12, 2000, nearly three weeks after Congress certified the election.
For more FOX News opinions, click here
This lawsuit does not determine whether an election can be held or whether candidates can be certified. The original March trial date has already been scrapped. It is unclear whether a trial will be held before the election. Although it could theoretically still happen despite June’s court ruling, each delay makes it noticeably less likely.
This trial could open a path for both sides. Trump could be acquitted, convicted, or the jury could hang. But courts rarely engage in such political calculations. In fact, some judges disagreed with the exceptional treatment the appellate board gave the case and felt pressured to file these claims to allow a trial that could affect the election. Some people may feel resentful of receiving it.
Notably, the court has previously rejected President Trump’s request for an early appeal involving several issues related to the last presidential election. This appeal is not dependent on or connected to the election or its certification.
It is clear that, unlike in the Nixon case, the court is unlikely to take a unanimous view on this issue. I have previously expressed doubts about the sweeping immunity claims offered by the Trump campaign. But the justices may also have genuine concerns about the impact of lower court decisions.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Some justices have long espoused a firm view of executive privilege and power. You may want to more accurately delineate the scope of this privilege. In that sense, the court may uphold the D.C. Circuit’s findings while offering a different or more nuanced view of immunity.
Of course, nothing is more appealing than calling the justices “insurrectionists” or spinning stories about retirement conspiracies with the RNC and AARP.
Jonathan Turley teaches a Supreme Court course at George Washington University.
For more information on Jonathan Turley, click here