What you are saying in literal terms is that you advocate for politically motivated prosecution. If it were about justice being served then the crime is the crime and the system of justice should work the same as it does for every American accused of a crime but you want this prosecution to be different so that it can influence the election.
Nope. Blame the Supreme Court, not my likes or dislikes.
“Since Congress first conferred such authority as part of its far broader expansion of certiorari jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1925 (the so-called “Judges’ Bill”), the Supreme Court has used its power to grant “cert before judgment” sparingly. As the current version of the court’s
Rule 11 emphasizes, cert before judgment will be granted “only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.” The leading Supreme Court treatise,
Supreme Court Practice, reinforces the rarity of such relief: “The public interest in a speedy determination must be exceptional … to warrant skipping the court of appeals in this fashion.” The most well-known examples prove the point — from
the Nazi saboteurs’ case during World War II; to
the Youngstown steel seizure case in 1952; to
the Watergate tapes case in 1974; to
the Iranian hostage dispute in 1981. In all of those cases, not only were the questions presented of the utmost importance, but time was of the essence, as well.”
——————————————————————————————
“Questions presented of the utmost importance”? Check. “Time was of the essence, as well”. Check.
Note the key point: “As the current version of the court’s
Rule 11 emphasizes, cert before judgment will be granted “only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.” The leading Supreme Court treatise,
Supreme Court Practice, reinforces the rarity of such relief: “The public interest in a speedy determination must be exceptional … to warrant skipping the court of appeals in this fashion.” I’m thinking the Supreme Court saw this trial as meeting those criteria.
I believe this present case meets the criteria the Supreme Court is likely using in this case, and for pretty obvious reasons. If any trial in the history of this nation meets that criteria, surely it is this one. BTW, as far as influencing the election, so far the indictments don’t seem to have hurt Trump at all, and I really can’t say if the trial in Washington will hurt him or help him in the 2024 election.
For obvious reasons, the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to grant certiorari in a pair of cases challenging race-based affirmative action in higher education drew major headlines. Less well noticed was a curious procedural feature of the second case, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of
www.scotusblog.com
