There’s the old adage, “Hard cases make bad law”. But yes, this is a unique case so far in US history. I don’t think it’s out of order to remind the courts that they are a part of society too, and so must, at times, consider the needs of that society in extreme circumstances. Sometimes things really are time-critical, and the court should act accordingly.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
What I don’t get is why it’s political to make the trial happen before the election and therefore illegitimate for the justice system but it’s apolitical to delay until after and therefore hunky-dory.
Yes! The constant, “You have to understand, this is how we do things” refrain in the judiciary is absolutely infuriating. Well, do this one differently. There are zero similarly situated defendants in the record to use as a frame of reference. There are no trials like this, there is no previous public interest so crucial. I’ll paraphrase: judicial tradition and protocol are not a suicide pact!
It’s political to do either because of the election.
If you want to speed up the trial because you want Trump to be convicted and have that out there for the voters, that’s political.
If you want to delay the trial so that Trump gets elected and can then direct the DOJ to make the case go away, that’s political.
If you want to speed up the trial to make way for other cases or to ensure that a defendant’s right to a speedy trial is maintained or anything else unrelated to the election, that’s apolitical.
If you want to delay the trial because you’re trying to settle something procedural and unprecedented, or something else unrelated to the election, that’s apolitical.
I believe that’s the prevailing opinion on the issue. It’s also possible that the trial is being delayed because Cannon is inexperienced and incompetent and screwing everything up. It does seem suspicious that her “mistakes” keep benefiting Trump though. (And I don’t think it’s simply because he appointed her; countless Trump appointees have made rulings that don’t favor him.)
I think you left one out: If you want to speed up the trial because it’s an absurd slow walk and there’s a tremendous public interest in resolving the matter as quickly as possible, whatever that resolution is, that’s not inherently political.
This is the current GOP nominee, accused of egregious abuses of his presidential authority. “Let’s make sure there’s not even an appearance of politics in the calculus” is an objective lost at the start, no matter how virtuous are the motives of the prosecution.
Our republic is in peril. I honestly don’t understand the gnashing of teeth over treating an unprecedented trial and defendant in a manner that recognizes the unique circumstances and the existential jeopardy the current process places us in. “But the system doesn’t work that way.” Well, then the system is failing us. We can all take comfort in our allegiance to protocol when Trump starts rounding up brown people and arresting his enemies.
Note that I said:
So I really wasn’t leaving that out, unless the “tremendous public interest” is specifically relating to the election, in which case that’s a political consideration.
It’s based on politics, but it’s not political in the common use of that word to mean doing something to benefit one side.
Yes. In this case, a legitimate consideration. “That’s a public interest related to politics” is, IMO, an absurd disqualifier when the trial we’re faced with is for the current GOP nominee accused of horrible abuses of his presidential powers.
I am absolutely not in disagreement with you on this.
My confusion then, apologies.
Speaking personally, the idea that Trump might be able to avoid prosecution by getting elected should make the cases a priority. But I’m not King of America so all I can do is gnash my teeth and hope for the best. 
(Though I’m also glad I’m not King of America, I have enough stress in my life already.)
Well, if you change your mind, you have my vote. 
Current presumptive GOP nominee, please.
That’s a good and fair point.
I still think it should be kept separate. The politics can be dealt with by voting on election day. The crimes will be dealt with at trial - certainly Smith should not wade into the politics. Two different timelines for two different things (but clearly related as you indicate). For voting purposes, there is plenty of good information out there for the public to inform themselves on this issue and Trump’s conduct in it.
True, but there are those who refuse to consider looking at information that might disturb their world-view. For them, the image of Trump in the pokey, even for six months or a year, might just pierce that bubble. And further, might give the both-sides-do-it crowd a thought to consider.
Certainly the Court chose to act in a way “specific to the election” of 2000, when they acted with unusual and unprecedented speed to take up and rule on Bush v Gore.
The claim that they cannot do so again, or that it would be wrong to do so because it would be ‘unprecedented’ (or the like) is pure right-wing propaganda.
Oh, come on, don’t you remember them specifically saying that Bush v. Gore didn’t count as a precedent?
Yeah, that was super-convincing.
A Pro-Publica writer mentions:
My bolding in the quote.
Or when when Scalia died just before an election and they wouldn’t even look at any of Obama’s nominees for reasons, but those reasons were tossed out the window when it was time for Trump to nominate Amy Coney Barrett under a similar timeline.
That wasn’t the court; that was the Senate.