Former President Donald Trump's niece Mary Trump lashed out at the Supreme Court on her show with political scientist Norm Ornstein on Thursday.
Specifically, Ms. Trump, a psychologist, said the justices were threatening America by dragging out a decision in the case where Trump seeks immunity from prosecution in the federal election conspiracy case brought by special counsel Jack Smith, Newsweek reported.
"What are we going to do?" she asked Ornstein. "We're sitting here on tenterhooks waiting for more horrific decisions to drop from the Supreme Court. The term is almost over and there's still 19 decisions pending. Three of them are absolutely enormous for the implications of the future of this country. And yet, Norm, the worst thing they did today was nothing. How is it possible that they have not yet figured out what to do with a question that never should have been asked about presidential immunity?"
"What seems crystal-clear to me, Mary, is that this is a deliberate decision on the part of the Supreme Court — which we knew from the get-go when they took this case unnecessarily in the first instance — to hold it until the very last minute and make it clear that there would be no way to hold a trial for Donald Trump on any of the things that are really the most significant," said Ornstein, who has worked for the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.
The justices refused to hear Trump's immunity case when Smith asked them to bypass the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last year, which resulted in months of litigation before they ultimately took it up anyway. Now, their decision to wait this long has left an extremely narrow window for Smith and District Judge Tanya Chutkan to take the case to trial before the November election, at a moment where the other two of Trump's remaining criminal cases already appear impossible to decide this year.
Furthermore, if a majority of justices rule that some official acts may be eligible for immunity, they could instruct Chutkan to review the case further and decide whether certain evidence must be excluded, even further complicating any effort to bring the case to trial quickly.
ALSO READ: Neuroscientist explains how Trump and Biden's cognitive impairments are different
