By Rich Lowry
Friday, March 01, 2024
The fix is in.
That’s the belief of all conspiracy theorists, and the
Left instantly went there upon the news that the Supreme Court will hear Donald
Trump’s immunity claim in Jack Smith’s January 6 case.
On MSNBC, Chris Hayes alleged, earnestly and unabashedly,
that an obvious conspiracy with Trump is at work: “Today, the Supreme Court
signaled that it is in cahoots. The plot is on. It is a go.”
.@chrislhayes:
The SCOTUS order "was a clear unmistakable sign from the MAGA majority of
the Trump-created court that they are with him. That they are going to use
their power to make sure that he does not face trial in an election year for
attempting to end American democracy." pic.twitter.com/fgrrP0tEw0
— All In with Chris Hayes
(@allinwithchris) February
29, 2024
His colleague Rachel Maddow said much the same thing,
upbraiding the Court for taking up the case “to help your political friend,
your partisan patron.”
Rachel Maddow calls the Supreme Court's decision to hear the Trump immunity
argument "B.S." She adds, "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 bull-pucky." pic.twitter.com/o7RHFZn9AY
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) February
29, 2024
Former Obama-ite Dan Pfeiffer sees the same dynamic at play: “The MAGA justices thanked
Trump by giving him a massive, possibly campaign-altering gift.”
This take on the Court’s action is confirmation, yet
again, that conspiracism is a phenomenon on both the right and the left. It has
become more prominent on the right because Trump has done so much to encourage
it. But the Left is shot through, too, with feverish and irrational thinking,
and among people with high-profile platforms.
On the right, the most common conspiracy theories these
days tend to be about the electoral system (or, um, Taylor Swift). On the left,
they tend to be about the Supreme Court. Amy Coney Barrett was being put on the
Court as part of a deal to repeal Obamacare. Clarence Thomas is beholden to a
few wealthy friends. Dark money has created the new conservative majority. And
now this.
The Left’s conspiratorial attacks on the Court reflect
its disappointment and outrage at no longer controlling it, and its goal to
delegitimize the institution in the hopes of undermining its unwelcome
decisions and preparing the ground for a possible Court-packing scheme.
Another motive is to set up the argument that the
election was rigged by the Court in the event of a Trump victory in November.
In this respect, the conspiratorial jags about the Court share the same
ultimate goal as the last great conspiracy theory on the left — the insistence
that Trump must have been in league with Russia in the 2016 election, which, of
course, was a way to delegitimize his victory.
(Rachel Maddow, who is a left-winger with mainstream
credibility, has been all in on both conspiracies.)
Consider the absurdity of the charges against the Court.
As we noted in our editorial, it was special counsel Jack Smith who
first asked the Court to settle the immunity issue. It declined, instead —
entirely defensibly — letting the normal appellate process play out. Now, it
has taken up the case, but only on an expedited basis.
For the Supreme Court to take the case in late February,
schedule oral arguments in April, and rule on it by the end of the term is an
extraordinary, lightning-fast schedule. Trump wanted the Court to hear the case
next term, which would have been completely reasonable — it’s not clear why it
should play along with Jack Smith’s politicized rush to have a trial before the
election. But the Court worked, within reason, to accommodate the special
counsel.
The Court’s critics argue that there’s nothing to be
decided here because the immunity case is so cut-and-dried against Trump. But
there’s a legitimate case that, even if the circuit court’s
bottom-line ruling is correct, its reasoning is flawed and the Court shouldn’t
let it stand.
More broadly, it’s not the fault of the Court that Jack
Smith brought a convoluted, legally novel case against Trump that was
inevitably going to raise fresh questions of law. Or that he had unrealistic
expectations of jamming it through the system without anyone pausing to
consider the fraught, consequential, underlying legal matters.
But reality is less emotionally satisfying and
politically convenient than a lurid tale of a dark conspiracy.
It’s only March. There’s much more where this came from.
No comments:
Post a Comment