We aren't the only ones to notice SCOTUS is infested with pro-Trump politics; The New York Times has noticed, too -- and that could spell trouble for the court

Trump shakes hands with Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch (Getty)

 

As we reported on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court's dubious decision to allow Donald Trump to appear on the 2024 presidential ballot gives a reasonable American grounds to believe the justices are acting corruptly, favoring Trump at most every turn. It turns out that we aren't the only ones thinking along those lines. The New York Times (NYT) is having similar thoughts, and that could pose a threat to the court's already diminished reputation. If the justices are wise -- and they obviously aren't -- they will recognize that their lofty positions also could be at risk.

Specifically, The Times notes that the ballot ruling on a case out of Colorado, combined with the court's decision to hear Trump's outlandish presidential-immunity claim, indicate it is not above engaging in partisan politics. That's a polite way of saying the court is acting corruptly.

It's one thing for Legal Schnauzer to call the high court corrupt, as I have done on multiple occasions (see here and here). To have The New York Times join the chorus raises the bar of seriousness to a whole new level. It puts the court's legitimacy -- perhaps even its existence, as we have come to know it -- at risk. 

This much is clear. The Times has seen enough of the justices' "Let's favor Trump game" to be disgusted by it. The disgust has reached such a level that one of the nation's two or three most influential newspapers is openly questioning the Supreme Court's integrity -- perhaps even it's usefulness.

The Times' disgust shines through in a piece by David Leonhardt, editor of the paper's The Morning newsletter. Under the headline "The Supreme Court and the election; A decision by the court will delay Trump’s federal trial for election subversion. In doing so, it has almost certainly helped his campaign," Leonhardt writes:

For six weeks in June and July 2022, a House committee held public hearings about the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. During those hearings, millions of Americans heard new details about the efforts by Donald Trump and his supporters to overturn the 2020 election result.

Less than four months later, Americans voted in the midterm elections — and rejected many of Trump’s favorite candidates. Republicans whom he had backed in primaries performed about five percentage points worse on average in the general election than other Republicans, a Times analysis found. The difference was large enough to decide several races.

The message seemed clear. Americans may be politically divided and (as I’ve written before) dissatisfied with both the Democratic Party’s liberalism and President Biden’s performance. But when voters focus on the anti-democratic behavior of Trump and his allies, a small but critical slice becomes less willing to vote for them.

This history feels particularly relevant after the Supreme Court issued a decision last week that will delay Trump’s federal trial for election subversion. The court agreed to hear Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution because the alleged crimes occurred while he was president. The justices scheduled arguments about his immunity claim for April, which is likely to push back the start of any trial until at least September. The court’s move reduces the chances of a trial verdict before Election Day.

In doing so, the court has almost certainly helped Trump’s campaign. He has made clear that delay is central to his strategy for fighting the cases against him. And for obvious reason: If he becomes president again, he can order the Justice Department to end any federal case against him.

Leonhardt calls this a "benefit to Trump," which it clearly is, especially when you consider the former president's primary legal strategy has been to delay the four criminal cases against him, perhaps because he has no valid defense to some, or all, of the charges. Leonhardt writes:

The delays also make it more likely that he will become president again. The public will be less focused on his attempts to overturn the 2020 election if he isn’t on trial for them. Polls have also found that a significant share of Trump’s current supporters claim they will not vote for him if he is convicted.

As Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, told me: “The possibility that Trump would be convicted of federal crimes by the election was one of the better reasons to think the race could shift toward Biden. That’s looking less likely now, especially as the D.C. case seemed like the fastest and clearest path to a conviction.” And as my colleagues Alan Feuer and Maggie Haberman wrote, “Trump’s delay strategy seems to be working.”

(Two other cases — a Georgia trial involving his attempts to overturn the result and a federal trial involving his handling of classified documents — have moved even more slowly. The charges in a fourth case — a New York trial set to start this month, involving hush money to conceal a sexual affair — may not seem as serious to many voters.)

Delay comes into play in a number of ways, Leonardt writes, even though the Supreme Court has shown it can move quickly on high-profile election matters when it feels inclined to do so:

The Supreme Court is not the only reason that the cases are moving slowly. Prosecutors in both federal cases and the Georgia case have moved with less urgency than some legal observers thought was savvy. And the Supreme Court justices will no doubt argue that they are merely following a reasonable timetable for an important case.

But the court has acted very quickly when dealing with past cases related to elections, including in Bush v. Gore in 2000. This year, by contrast, the justices have made two different decisions that have pushed back Trump’s trial for election subversion.

So why is the current version of SCOTUS, with its six Republican appointees (including three by Trump), dragging its feet compared to the Bush v. Gore court? Leonhardt takes a hard look at that question:

First, the justices rejected a request in December from Jack Smith, the special prosecutor, that they immediately consider Trump’s claim of immunity. The case was so important, Smith said, that only the Supreme Court could resolve it and should not wait for an appeals courts to hear it first. The justices said no to Smith.

Second, after the appeals court ruled against Trump, the justices agreed last week to hear his challenge — and scheduled the hearing for late April, almost two months from now. “The schedule the court set could make it hard, if not impossible, to complete Mr. Trump’s trial before the 2024 election,” Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The Times, wrote. (I recommend this article by Adam, in which he explains the relevant history, such as Bush v. Gore.)

In a newsletter last week, I argued that the Supreme Court’s recent decision on diversity and high school admissions offered a reason for Americans to be less cynical about the court. On that subject, the justices seemed to be following a consistent principle across several cases. Sometimes that principle disappointed the political left, and sometimes it disappointed the right.

In short, Leonhardt says, the court again is giving the public reason to be cynical about it -- to believe the court has no guiding principles, other than to help Trump.

Last week’s decision feels different. When urgent action could help a Republican presidential candidate in 2000, the court — which was also dominated by Republican appointees at the time — acted urgently. When delay seems likely to help a Republican presidential candidate in 2024, the court has chosen delay. The combination does not make the court look independent from partisan politics.

Why is that? I can think of only one answer: This court is not independent from partisan politics, and it's not trying very hard to fool anybody. The justices' guiding ethos seems to be: Anything Trump and the Republican Party want, they will get."

The New York Times has taken notice, and the justices should be smart enough to realize that is not a good thing for them. In fact, it could eventually upend their insular world in a big way.