The U.S. Supreme Court is aiding former President Donald Trump’s re-election bid by slow-walking the immunity case the court last week agreed to hear, several Democrats charge.
Initially, a criminal indictment against Trump was to begin Monday, but Trump’s lawyers sought a delay, which the Supreme court granted, citing presidential immunity.
Democrats’ objections came from Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin of Illinois and Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland.
“Their delay in considering this critical issue — this timely issue — is going to delay the resolution of these cases by months at least, and perhaps beyond the election,” Durbin told “State of the Union” on CNN. “I think that is a disappointment.”
“We don’t have a king here,” Raskin said Sunday on “Inside with Jen Psaki” on MSNBC.
“We had a revolution against a king, and the Constitution is written so that [the] president’s main job is to take care the laws are faithfully executed, not faithfully violated in his own interest,” Raskin said.
Trump is accused of alleged attempts to undermine 2020 election results. His defense argument is that he was fulfilling presidential duties by attempting to preserve election integrity.
Trump was overruled by U. S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee in the District of Columbia, a decision upheld by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Is this the right decision by SCOTUS?
Durbin, who has been beating the drum for changed ethical standards for the conservative-leaning Supreme Court, indicated delaying the Trump election case operated in favor of the former president.
“I think the court has acted quickly in the past when they realized that the presidential timetable was at risk, and I’m really concerned with what they’ve done,” Durbin said.
Raskin said the Supreme Court should not have agreed to hear the case but should have let the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals stand.
“It’s a completely exhaustive and totally compelling decision saying that the claim that the president can escape criminal prosecution for criminal acts that he conducts in office is utterly antithetical to everything that we know about our Constitution,” according to Raskin.
Psaki, former Biden administration White House press secretary, asked Raskin if some Supreme Court justices are wanting to delay Trump’s trials.
“Well, yeah,” Raskin replied.
“If you don’t believe that, you’re too innocent to be let out of the house by yourself at this point,” he continued.
“This is a court driven by both Trump nominees and Bush nominees,” Raskin said.
“And neither of those guys was elected with the popular vote majority, so we’ve got a Supreme Court that is representing the choices of minority presidents.
“And they have been driving very hard to overturn a whole series of precedents that America has come to take for granted, like Roe v. Wade,” he said.
While the four-count indictment proceedings were bumped from Monday, it’s possible the Supreme Court will rule on Colorado’s disqualification of Trump from that state’s ballot.
