lpm wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 11:27 pm
But SCOTUS has given him a major win, by delaying hearings on immunity to such an unnecessary degree.
Certainly the
arithmetic of timing (Guardian) that results from SCOTUS's timing means that we can now see clearly it is impossible for the election interference court case to be completed before the election. Key arithmetical factors are that Trump has a right to an 87 days of his remaining "defence preparation time" once SCOTUS has ruled before the trial starts. And then the practical deadline is not the election, but 60 days before the election, as "politically sensitive" trials may not proceed during that 60 days.
So we can now see clearly that Trump has succeeded in delaying this case sufficiently. But I would say that was always likely. It was always a tricky scramble for this case to be completed. When you look at the arithmetic above, even if SCOTUS had heard it more quickly, it probably still wouldn't have finished. Even if the case did go to trial before the election purdah period, he'd still have opportunities to appeal. We now know that he doesn't need that, but that's the reality. If Trump loses and the case against him proceeds, I think it will be well into Biden's second term before this case and its appeals terminate.
SCOTUS says hearings will start on 26 April. Is eight weeks notice in any way slow for the supreme court in a typical case? Doesn't sound like it to me. It sounds quite normal. Indeed I'd guess it is probably quicker than most cases they agree to hear, though I'm guessing and maybe someone can correct me. Clearly there is potential to expedite cases if there is great urgency, as might happen in some argument over a dying person. But SCOTUS already turned down a request from the Federal Prosecutor to expedite the case. So I think that battle was already lost, and frankly I didn't believe that Smith would get what he asked for when he asked. They were not going to do it quickly. It has been enough for them simply not to do it conspicuously slowly.
And this is a very important case for the long-term legal precedent of the US. There is a sense it would be wrong to hurry over it, much as many would find that convenient at just this moment.
SCOTUS did not have to order that the Fed case should stop to await the judgment. But they did. Of course they did, we didn't realistically expect them not to.
Do I believe that the SCOTUS has done what it could to slow this down? Well they certainly haven't done anything to speed it up. And do I think that was partisan? Yes I do. But SCOTUS is partisan. And I don't think they have behaved in some conspicuously unusual and slow way, given the importance of the case. It has just been slow enough to sink the completion of the case by September. But finishing it by September was always going to be a big ask to achieve, and it was unlikely that SCOTUS would actively cooperate in achieving that.
The ultimate problem is that the wheels of US justice turn slowly, and this process just started far too late for the length of time Trump would be able - even with his poor quality legal team - to stretch it out for, with appeals on various issues. By the time a
Grand Jury indicted Trump on 37 counts, it was already over 30 months since the relevant incidents, and only 15 months before the deadline to complete the legal process before the next election. Whilst various people claimed Jack Smith had boxed clever to try and finish this in that 15 months, I think most people really knew it was probably already too late by then. That's what I believed at the time, its what many analysts said at the time, despite various optimistic people trying really hard to argue that that it really was perfectly feasible to finish this in time.
