There seems no end to the ethical questions surrounding the behavior of several Supreme Court justices, what with the endless stories of undisclosed swanky vacations and gifts, but the most shameful lapses aren’t personal, they’re institutional. Recall that Donald Trump has been charged with multiple felonies for attempting to overthrow the government. The federal court of appeals in D.
C. unanimously rejected his outlandish argument for total presidential immunity on the sixth of February, setting the stage for a trial on this multi-count indictment. But the Supreme Court weighed in three weeks later, not only to rule it wanted to review the appeals court decision, but in a lengthy process that seems designed to ensure that the voters will not know Trump’s guilt or innocence after a trial—if one is now ever held—before they cast their ballots.
Litigants are used to hearing about the slow pace of judicial decision-making; the law’s delay is a cliché. But when the national interest plainly calls for speedy resolution of an essential constitutional conflict, as in a case like this one that features an attack on the Capitol and an attempt to set aside a presidential election, previous Supreme Courts have often responded immediately. But with the Trump case, foot-dragging began immediately.
Special counsel Jack Smith sought to have the Court resolve the immunity issue in 2023, but was rebuffed. After the court of appeals decision, the Supremes set oral argument for t.
