By Liberals are in full freakout mode because the Supreme Court will treat Donald Trump like any other citizen. The Washington Post writes that the Supreme Court will review Donald Trump’s unprecedented claim that he is shielded from prosecution for actions taken while in office, further delaying the former president’s federal trial in the nation’s capital on charges of conspiring to overturn his 2020 election loss to remain in power.
The justices set arguments for the week of April 22 to consider a unanimous ruling from a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which early this month rejected Trump’s sweeping assertion of immunity from prosecution.”
The Guardian reports:
The court had the option of rejecting Trump’s appeal without hearing the arguments. Instead, it set oral arguments for the week of 22 April. That means even if the justices come to a speedy decision – say, in early May – the trial would be pushed off until mid-summer at the earliest. That might not be enough time to actually hold the trial before the election, and plays right into Trump’s explicit legal strategy of trying to delay his criminal trials.
The court will consider whether, and to what extent, “a former president enjoys presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office”.
Lower-court judges have unanimously ruled against Trump, writing withering opinions of his arguments; legal observers widely expect that the US supreme court, which has a six to three conservative majority, will agree. The issue is the timeline.
In response to the Court’s decision to hold a hearing, like they would for anyone else, liberal media panicked. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, for example, went on an unhinged, conspiracy-laden rant, screaming about “The MAGA Supreme Court” being in cahoots with Trump to “end American democracy” by not letting the DOJ put the former president on trial before an election.
.@chrislhayes: The SCOTUS order "was a clear unmistakable sign from the MAGA majority of the Trump-created court that they are with him. That they are going to use their power to make sure that he does not face trial in an election year for attempting to end American democracy." pic.twitter.com/fgrrP0tEw0
— All In with Chris Hayes (@allinwithchris) February 29, 2024
MSNBC contributor and law professor Barb McQuade, coming off of an appearance wherein she claimed the First Amendment makes America “vulnerable,” added to the news channel’s freakout with this gem:
The right to a speedy trial belongs to the public as well as the defendant. Efforts to bring a case to trial promptly is not “election interference.”
— Barb McQuade (@BarbMcQuade) February 29, 2024
As Twitter readers noted: The “public interest” in a “timely resolution” of criminal cases—in law, an “interest” is not a “right,” the right to a “speedy trial” is the name for a specific right in the Constitution, and the “public interest” is general, not for a specific case.
In reality, as the independent news and analysis site SCOTUSblog explained, “Trump came to the Supreme Court on Feb. 12, seeking to have the D.C. Circuit’s ruling put on hold to give him time to file a petition for review of that decision and, if possible, reconsideration by the full D.C. Circuit. He stressed the importance of ‘thoughtful consideration,’ particularly when – he warned – allowing the D.C. Circuit’s decision to stand could lead to “destructive cycles of recrimination,” in which future presidents face criminal prosecutions for their actions, thereby clouding their ability to do their job effectively.
The Supreme Court instructed Smith to file his response on Feb. 20, signaling that the justices did not necessarily regard the case as a true emergency. However, on Feb. 14, six days ahead of schedule, Smith urged the justices to allow Trump’s trial to proceed without further delay. The crimes with which Trump has been charged ‘strike at the heart of our democracy,’ Smith wrote, and there is a ‘national interest in seeing’ them resolved promptly.
Smith offered a second option for the justices: Treat Trump’s request to put the D.C. Circuit’s ruling on hold as a petition for review, grant that petition, and fast-track the case for oral argument in March, to resolve the dispute quickly.
Nearly two weeks after Trump filed his reply brief, the justices chose (for the most part) Smith’s second option. In an unsigned order, the justices agreed to decide whether and to what extent a former president is immune from prosecution for conduct that allegedly involves his official acts during his time in office.”
The case is expected to layout the parameters of presidential immunity. Earlier in the year, Trump’s lawyer bizarrely claimed that the president can assassinate his opponents without criminal repercussions, something that the Court will likely not agree with.
[Read More: Kamala Announces Plan To Use Tax Money To Register Dems]
