Another day of Supreme Court decisions passed on Friday, another day without an opinion on presidential immunity. No better evidence of the bad faith and bias on the part of the right-wing Supreme Court majority exists than its foot-dragging on the decision concerning whether felon and former president Donald Trump can be prosecuted for an insurrection. In deciding to delay the case for more than six months, the court itself commits election interference.
Sign up for the Prompt 2024 newsletter for opinions on the biggest questions in politics
Trump’s strategy in his four criminal matters has always been to delay any reckoning beyond the election in hopes he would get elected, whereupon he could shut down federal prosecutions and put state cases on hold. Now, thanks to U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s near-comedic stalling of Trump’s Espionage Act case and the Supreme Court’s equally blatant procrastination, Trump may get his way.
Cannon’s obvious favoritism toward Trump in entertaining specious arguments, holding nonsensical hearings (including a bizarre hours-long hearing featuring nonparty lawyers debating a well-settled issue) and delaying definitive decisions that could be appealed has been widely panned. No wonder her fellow judges — including the chief judge in her Southern District of Florida — wanted her to recuse. But is the Supreme Court’s majority any better?
Advertisement
“By shielding Donald Trump from standing trial before a jury in two of his felony cases, Trump’s three appointments to the Supreme Court, along with the even more MAGA Justices Alito and Thomas and Judge Aileen Cannon, have already irreparably interfered in the 2024 election,” writes longtime Democratic activist and consultant Michael Podhorzer. “Most importantly, when we finally do get the immunity ruling in the days or more likely weeks ahead, it will set the stage for a historic crisis.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=mc_magnet-optrumpindict_inline_collection_20
If Trump’s Jan. 6 trial speeds ahead, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan will be seen as meddling in the election; if she holds off until after the election, it will be clear the Supreme Court already did Trump’s bidding. “It didn’t have to be this way: had the Republican majority on the Court not intervened at the last minute, we would already have a verdict in the case,” Podhorzer writes. “We would also have a verdict if they had not rejected Jack Smith when he asked them to decide the same issues last December.”
Dragging out this case since Smith first asked the court to rule in December stands in sharp contrast to the Supreme Court’s swift decisions issued in other time-sensitive cases such as the Pentagon Papers (oral argument on June 26, 1971, and decision on June 30) and Bush v. Gore (decided less than a week after the court agreed to hear it in 2000), the Trump 14th Amendment disqualification case (decided 25 days after oral argument this year) and the Watergate tapes case (the court took up the case May 31, 1974, heard oral argument on July 8 and handed down its decision on July 24).
ADVERTISING
The delay is all the more outrageous because virtually no credible court watcher expects the Supreme Court to find that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity. Had the court simply affirmed the decisions of either the U.S. District Court in D.C. or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the district court trial could have commenced in routine fashion. In whatever way the Supreme Court eventually decides to parse which acts are subject to immunity (rather than simply decide no immunity could exist in a coup attempt) and contrives a process for proceeding in the lower court, the justice system entitling the people as well as defendants to a timely trial will be undermined.
Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe (who litigated Bush v. Gore) recently told Salon magazine: “It could have taken the case in December when the special counsel asked it to be heard directly, or they could have declined to take the case after the court of appeals quite comprehensively rejected Trump’s appeal, so the trial could be over by now. Instead, the court has dragged its feet.” And now it lets the clock run down on a case argued nearly two months ago.
Even if the Supreme Court rejects a sweeping absolute immunity claim, the court’s blatant procrastination will have signaled to the Aileen Cannons and other lower-court judges that manipulation of justice simply through delay and procedural gimmicks is acceptable. The Supreme Court’s conduct opens the door to widespread and deliberate finagling with court schedules to benefit favored parties.
All of this comes amid the worst scandals in the court’s history, which raise serious doubt about the justices’ independence and integrity (e.g., Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s insurrectionist flag flying, Justice Clarence Thomas’s refusal to recuse himself despite his wife’s participation in the coup attempt, Thomas’s multiple financial disclosure violations and receipts of millions of dollars in gifts). These, coupled with obvious gamesmanship to benefit “their side,” will permanently besmirch this court.
The Supreme Court justices’ egregious conduct has only underscored that lifetime tenure leads to abuse of power. To preserve any hope of restoring the court’s integrity, voters, Congress and the president must insist on strict ethics reform, term limits and rebalancing of the court with additional justices who appreciate judicial norms and ethics. The current crew of justices can no longer be relied upon to render fair, impartial — or timely — justice.
Sign up for the Prompt 2024 newsletter for opinions on the biggest questions in politicsTrump’s strategy in his four criminal matters has always been to delay any reckoning beyond the election in hopes he would get elected, whereupon he could shut down federal prosecutions and put state cases on hold. Now, thanks to U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s near-comedic stalling of Trump’s Espionage Act case and the Supreme Court’s equally blatant procrastination, Trump may get his way.
Cannon’s obvious favoritism toward Trump in entertaining specious arguments, holding nonsensical hearings (including a bizarre hours-long hearing featuring nonparty lawyers debating a well-settled issue) and delaying definitive decisions that could be appealed has been widely panned. No wonder her fellow judges — including the chief judge in her Southern District of Florida — wanted her to recuse. But is the Supreme Court’s majority any better?
Advertisement
“By shielding Donald Trump from standing trial before a jury in two of his felony cases, Trump’s three appointments to the Supreme Court, along with the even more MAGA Justices Alito and Thomas and Judge Aileen Cannon, have already irreparably interfered in the 2024 election,” writes longtime Democratic activist and consultant Michael Podhorzer. “Most importantly, when we finally do get the immunity ruling in the days or more likely weeks ahead, it will set the stage for a historic crisis.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=mc_magnet-optrumpindict_inline_collection_20
If Trump’s Jan. 6 trial speeds ahead, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan will be seen as meddling in the election; if she holds off until after the election, it will be clear the Supreme Court already did Trump’s bidding. “It didn’t have to be this way: had the Republican majority on the Court not intervened at the last minute, we would already have a verdict in the case,” Podhorzer writes. “We would also have a verdict if they had not rejected Jack Smith when he asked them to decide the same issues last December.”
Dragging out this case since Smith first asked the court to rule in December stands in sharp contrast to the Supreme Court’s swift decisions issued in other time-sensitive cases such as the Pentagon Papers (oral argument on June 26, 1971, and decision on June 30) and Bush v. Gore (decided less than a week after the court agreed to hear it in 2000), the Trump 14th Amendment disqualification case (decided 25 days after oral argument this year) and the Watergate tapes case (the court took up the case May 31, 1974, heard oral argument on July 8 and handed down its decision on July 24).
ADVERTISING
The delay is all the more outrageous because virtually no credible court watcher expects the Supreme Court to find that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity. Had the court simply affirmed the decisions of either the U.S. District Court in D.C. or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the district court trial could have commenced in routine fashion. In whatever way the Supreme Court eventually decides to parse which acts are subject to immunity (rather than simply decide no immunity could exist in a coup attempt) and contrives a process for proceeding in the lower court, the justice system entitling the people as well as defendants to a timely trial will be undermined.
Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe (who litigated Bush v. Gore) recently told Salon magazine: “It could have taken the case in December when the special counsel asked it to be heard directly, or they could have declined to take the case after the court of appeals quite comprehensively rejected Trump’s appeal, so the trial could be over by now. Instead, the court has dragged its feet.” And now it lets the clock run down on a case argued nearly two months ago.
Even if the Supreme Court rejects a sweeping absolute immunity claim, the court’s blatant procrastination will have signaled to the Aileen Cannons and other lower-court judges that manipulation of justice simply through delay and procedural gimmicks is acceptable. The Supreme Court’s conduct opens the door to widespread and deliberate finagling with court schedules to benefit favored parties.
All of this comes amid the worst scandals in the court’s history, which raise serious doubt about the justices’ independence and integrity (e.g., Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s insurrectionist flag flying, Justice Clarence Thomas’s refusal to recuse himself despite his wife’s participation in the coup attempt, Thomas’s multiple financial disclosure violations and receipts of millions of dollars in gifts). These, coupled with obvious gamesmanship to benefit “their side,” will permanently besmirch this court.
The Supreme Court justices’ egregious conduct has only underscored that lifetime tenure leads to abuse of power. To preserve any hope of restoring the court’s integrity, voters, Congress and the president must insist on strict ethics reform, term limits and rebalancing of the court with additional justices who appreciate judicial norms and ethics. The current crew of justices can no longer be relied upon to render fair, impartial — or timely — justice.
