What displeases me is not the court’s decision to hear the case, but the outrageously lethargic timing. The court would have been far better off taking up the issue in December, when Special Counsel Jack Smith urged the justices to jump to the federal appeals court. Well, it’s been two and a half months since then. It took two weeks after President Trump asked for intervention before the judge announced he would hear the case. To make matters worse, they have set oral arguments for the week of April 22nd, and a delay could mean a decision could easily take until May, or even linger until the end of the term at the end of June. It means that there is.
Worst of all, especially given this schedule, the judge could have allowed trial preparations to proceed while the case was being presented, argued, and sentenced. That would have prevented President Trump from accomplishing what he has always wanted to do: use immunity as a ploy to delay a trial until after the election.
Instead, the court made a bizarre procedural avoidance. A request by Trump’s lawyers to block the appeals court’s ruling against him did not materialize. Instead, it issued an unusual order to the appellate court. After all, it would have the same effect without having to meet the strict standards that apply when seeking a stay.
In any case, the bottom line is that pretrial proceedings remain frozen. And U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan estimates that the parties will need 88 days to prepare for trial, so from the time the judge finally issues a decision until the trial begins. It will take many months. That means the trial likely won’t start until September at the earliest. And if that happens, President Trump will likely insist on delaying the trial so he can campaign freely without being limited to sitting in federal court.
How do I explain what’s going on here? It has all the hallmarks of a compromise that isn’t a compromise at all, but given the overwhelming conservative majority. Not surprising. Partisan motives aside, it’s not hard to imagine that some conservative justices would be outraged by the idea that election dates should play a role, and would prefer to see cases decided in their regular order. You don’t have to be a Trump supporter to take that position. This would mean a delay until October, when the next term begins, as the court’s calendar is already set for this year.
The same goes for a slower pace. This court knows very well how to speed things up if necessary. Consider the timeline of Colorado’s Trump disqualification case. He asked the court to take up the case on January 3rd. They agreed two days later and set the argument date for February 5th (understandably, in that situation, an undeniable deadline was looming. So where is the verdict? Colorado’s primary is on Tuesday) ) However, even here, I think the conservative justices probably made the following decision. I thought they were already speeding up the problem. Conclusion: Unless you have more negotiation skills than a liberal judge, you will not be able to proceed with good negotiations.
Finally, some judges may be unwilling to accept any responsibility for conflicts between election and statutory dates. After all, if Attorney General Merrick Garland had moved sooner to indict Trump for conduct from three years ago, we would not be in this situation. they might argue. Perhaps, but we are where we are now. The direct cause of the current predicament is the courts themselves.
and the way the court frames the question it wants to decide: “Whether a former president enjoys presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for his actions, and if so, to what extent?” There may be further delays because of the incorporation – which will eventually come to light – of suspicions that he has engaged in official conduct while in office. ”
The appeals court panel that unanimously rejected President Trump’s immunity request made its case in broader terms. Unlike another appellate panel that considered President Trump’s immunity issue in connection with injury damages lawsuits on January 6, 2021, the panel found that President Trump’s actions were due to his official position. He did not analyze whether it was due to his personal reasons or his role as president. presidential candidate. If the judge decides that’s the better approach, lower courts could take more time to sort out which criminal acts include official acts.
This long-term goal of gaining presidential immunity has always been to buy President Trump time from the beginning. With the Supreme Court’s complicity, it worked like a charm.