Will anyone trust these hyper-politicized courts to try Donald Trump?
Will anyone trust these hyper-politicized courts to try Donald Trump?
The federal judiciary is a cesspool of partisanship, and now it’s being asked to oversee some of the most politically fraught criminal trials in American history.
FTA:
One reason to worry about what appellate judges, including the justices of the Supreme Court, might think about Trump is that criminal trials involving famous criminal defendants often present unusual legal questions that don’t typically arise in other cases. And Trump isn’t just famous, he’s the first former president ever to be indicted. And he’s a current candidate for the presidency.
These unique facts are likely to produce unprecedented legal questions that will need to be resolved by appellate courts. And that gives the justices an unusual amount of ability to sabotage these prosecutions if they chose to do so.
So far he hasn't fared well in front of judges he appointed either, with a couple exceptions.
For every question about things the Heritage Foundation has a strong evil opinion on, I'm sure that Heritage judges (appointed by Trump) will choose the evil answer.
But I don't think Heritage wants to end American democracy. It's worked out quite well for them. So I don't think their judges (appointed by Trump) will rule in favor of ending American democracy.
Legalize racism? Sure, they'll do that. Let a man try to overthrow our elections? Nah.
Who cares? Just finish the job
This is the best summary I could come up with:
For the better part of the last decade, moreover, Republicans have made it crystal clear that the Supreme Court is a partisan prize awarded to the political party that does the best job of playing constitutional hardball.
In 2016, after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death gave Democrats their first chance in a generation to control the Supreme Court — and with it the federal judiciary — Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell announced that no nominee would receive a confirmation hearing until after that year’s presidential election.
This beating was captured on videotape, and the tape was widely broadcast on national news stations — meaning that, by the time the case actually reached trial, most of the country had seen extraordinarily persuasive evidence that the four officers were guilty.
But even if all the judges hearing Trump trials behave honorably, this particular jury selection process will almost inevitably raise unique legal questions that have not previously been addressed by other courts.
And, in a decision that is so unpopular it may shatter the GOP’s political coalition, the Court’s new majority voted to overrule Roe v. Wade and eliminate the right to an abortion.
But, while Trump’s justices helped the Republican former president keep his political promise, they did so over Casey’s warning that such a decision to overrule a seminal precedent “would subvert the Court’s legitimacy beyond any serious question.”
I'm a bot and I'm open source!