Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus expresses frustration in her recent piece, titled “Slowpoke federal appeals court puts 2024 election in jeopardy,” criticizing what she perceives as the sluggish pace of legal proceedings in the case alleging that former President Trump sought to overturn the 2020 election results. Marcus contends that Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecutions related to his presidential actions is an “audacious” defense, bordering on “unconscionable.” She voices dissatisfaction with the federal appeals panel’s delay in rendering a decision on Trump’s claim, emphasizing that it has been nearly a month since oral arguments.
In Marcus’s view, the delay contrasts with the swiftness with which another panel of the D.C. Circuit largely rejected Trump’s challenge to a First Amendment-bludgeoning gag order, taking only 18 days past oral arguments. She suggests that the presence of Biden appointees on the immunity panel might be influencing the pace of the decision, insinuating that their disposition to rule against Trump could be a factor in the delay.
Marcus’s impatience appears to stem from the left’s desire to expedite legal actions against Trump, potentially influencing the 2024 election. She raises concerns about the trial colliding with party conventions and the general election campaign, envisioning a scenario where Trump’s goal is to win, take office, and order the case dropped after the election.
The columnist frames Trump’s legal defense as an obstacle to a quick conviction and criticizes his attorneys for not prioritizing the Democrats’ timeline. Marcus contends that voters deserve to know if they are choosing a felon, especially one guilty of election interference, before casting their ballots. She suggests that any delay in the legal process would be a disservice to voters, emphasizing the urgency of swift action to prevent Trump from running out the clock.
The article underscores the tension between legal due process and the left’s political imperative to expedite legal actions against Trump, highlighting the stakes of the legal proceedings in the broader political landscape. The tone of frustration and impatience in Marcus’s piece reflects a desire for a quick resolution that aligns with the left’s strategy of minimizing Trump’s political influence.