The Supreme Court’s decision to hear arguments concerning presidential immunity has sparked a wave of reactions from the liberal media establishment. Many are criticizing the court for delaying the Trump trials concerning election interference and possibly the classified documents case prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith. However, this decision was not unexpected, and it is the court’s duty to review cases that involve matters of presidential immunity.
The backlash against the court’s decision was best exemplified by Rachel Maddow’s meltdown on MSNBC. As a Rhodes scholar, Maddow is known for her controlled emotions, but she clearly expressed her irritation with the court’s ruling. Yet, the court is not influenced by public opinions or emotional outbursts. Its duty is to carry out impartial and fair judicial review, regardless of the political climate.
“This is B.S.—you were doing this as a dilatory tactic to help your political friend,” says @Maddow on SCOTUS. “And for you to say that this is something that the Court needs to decide because it’s something that’s unclear in the law is just flagrant, flagrant bullpucky.” pic.twitter.com/v1NKDorzb0
— All In with Chris Hayes (@allinwithchris) February 29, 2024
It is worth noting that the request for the court to review presidential immunity was also made by Special Counsel Robert Hur in his report on whether President Trump willfully retained classified materials. Therefore, the current situation is not entirely unprecedented, and the court’s decision should not come as a surprise.
Despite the Supreme Court’s involvement, the Trump legal drama is far from over. The trial for the Stormy Daniels hush payments case in Manhattan is still scheduled to begin on March 25. This is seen as the weakest case against the president, and many experts believe it is unlikely to lead to any significant legal consequences for Trump.
While the liberal media may be disappointed with the court’s decision, it is important to remember that the judicial branch is not meant to cater to public opinion. The court’s role is to interpret and uphold the law, and in this case, that includes reviewing cases involving presidential immunity.
IGNORAMUSES
Ignoring that Special Counsel Jack Smith literally asked SCOTUS to hear/expedite the Trump immunity case, The View claims hearing the case is a plot by conservative justices to help Trump (ignoring the fact they’ve ruled against him before). pic.twitter.com/QUcPFWxXfj— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) February 29, 2024
It is also worth noting that, while the court’s involvement may delay the Trump trials, it does not mean that the president will be completely immune from prosecution. He must still answer for his actions in a court of law, but the timing and specifics of the trials may be affected by the court’s decision.
Furthermore, the court’s review of presidential immunity is not an indication of guilt or innocence. It is simply a necessary step in the judicial process, and it is one that will ensure a fair and thorough examination of the cases at hand.
In the end, it is up to the courts to decide the fate of the Trump legal drama. The media and the public may have strong opinions, but it is ultimately the judiciary’s responsibility to make fair and impartial decisions based on the law. It is through this process that justice can be served, and the truth can be revealed. The Supreme Court’s involvement may delay the trials, but it is a necessary step to ensure a just outcome.
