Slow Walking the Trump Appeal?

Mr. Stephen Maseda’s April 16 letter was critical of my opinion that the Supreme Court has intentionally delayed action on an issue a ecting the various federal indictments of Donald Trump. He suggested that it is quite ne to put the hearing on his presidential immunity claim at the end of the court docket, presumably because it is not that important relative to other court cases. is is preposterous.

The special counsel of the Department of Justice appealed to the court months ago to take up this case expeditiously rather than let it wind through the lower courts and an obvious slow appeals process. It was argued that the case would certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court eventually. No, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, and sent it back to the lower courts, where Trump’s immunity claim had already been rejected unanimously by an appeals court.

This week the Supreme Court will nally hear arguments on this absurd argument. And who knows when this court may rule. If delay is the objective, it is going to be obvious to everyone. e Supreme Court is already held in very low esteem by the American public, and this will put icing and a strawberry on the whole subject.

Liz Cheney wrote in an opinion article to the New York Times that if the Supreme Court does not resolve the issue of presidential immunity “quickly and decisively,” it will have a profound impact on the country. I agree with Ms. Cheney (hard to say). I must be transitioning to a conservative Republican from the le ist radical that I am usually accused of in this newspaper.

Thomas Oatway Valencia