Jonathan P. Baird

After the oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court on the Mifepristone case, FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, most pro-choice commentators breathed a sigh of relief. It appeared that the Court was not buying that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine had standing, a legal doctrine required to allow a case to move forward.

To have standing, a party must be able to show they have been injured in some direct way the Court could remedy. In this case, the harm was entirely speculative. The anti-abortion doctor plaintiffs argued a theoretical possibility of harm which was unpersuasive.

At stake is the future of medication abortion. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the medication Mifepristone, figured in 63% of medical abortions in the U.S. in 2023. Based on the oral argument, it is unlikely this will be the case to ban medication abortion.

That said, the fact that this dumb case will not succeed in getting rid of medication abortion is not reassuring to reproductive rights supporters. The anti-abortion movement is looking to use a zombie law, the 1873 Comstock Act, to justify a national ban on all abortions. Both Justices Alito and Thomas mentioned it in the oral argument with Alito calling it a “prominent law”.

Conservatives are looking to the Comstock Act as the vehicle to ban every single abortion in America whether in red or blue states.The Comstock Act was originally about banning pornographic literature, birth control and early abortion-incducing substances that were sent through the mail. It is extremely likely conservatives will try and revive this 19th century law which has been in deep sleep mode.

To appreciate the craziness of the Comstock law revivers, you need to look at who Anthony Comstock was. In his time in the later part of the 19th century, Comstock was one of the most feared and reviled men in America. The writer Amy Sohn, who authored The Man Who Hated Women, a biography of Comstock, wrote:

“Comstockery and Comstockism came to connote prudishness, control, censoriousness and repression of thought.”

Sohn wrote that Comstock did more to curtail women’s rights than anyone else in U.S. history. He was an anti-sex freak who literally had no understanding of reproduction. He believed a fetus could form seconds after unprotected sex. He was horrified by pictures of naked bodies.

Comstock was a book banner. He bragged about removing thousands of books from circulation that touched on sex in any way. He was quick to place such books in the category of pornography. According to Sohn, Comstock, with no remorse, drove 15 people to suicide with his relentless prosecutions. He was against everything he considered obscene or that he believed suggested lust.

Roe v Wade had turned the Comstock Act into a dead letter but with that precedent overturned the anti-abortion movement plans to bring Comstock back from the dead. Mail is implicated in every abortion whether in clinics or by medication. All tools and medications come through the mail. The anti-abortion movement will either re-fashion the current Mifepristone case or bring new cases to the Supreme Court relying on the Comstock Act as their means to achieve a national abortion ban.

Democrats and all supporters of women’s rights should seek to repeal the Comstock Act. Congress previously repealed parts of the Act connected to birth control but other parts of Comstock were never repealed. There is a legal argument that the law was set aside by a court decision in 1930 but that will be part of the argument.

As a woman-hater, Anthony Comstock should be seen as one of the worst people in American history but the anti-abortion movement sees the law named after him as their fastest route to the result they want. They don’t care he was a misogynist.

It is not reassuring that FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine made it to the High Court. The story behind the case deserves mention because this is a meritless case that passes no smell test. A judge with no medical or scientific expertise found a medication unsafe despite the FDA’s long-standing approval of its use. Mifepristone has been used by 5.6 million women and research shows fewer serious risks than Tylenol.

The plaintiffs set up shop in Amarillo Texas even though none of them had members there so they could judge-shop and get their case heard by Matthew Kacsmaryk, the only judge in that district. Kacsmaryk is an anti-abortion fanatic who Donald Trump appointed to the federal bench. Even though Mifepristone was approved by the FDA in 2000 and had been used safely for 24 years, Kacamaryk ordered a nation-wide ban against the use of Mifepristone.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, another hub of far right Trump appointees, largely let Kacsmaryk’s decision go forward although his injunction was stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision. Kacsmaryk relied on discredited medical studies and internet blog posts to make his case against Mifepristone.

The Supreme Court is not done with abortion issues this term. In April, in the case of Idaho v United States, the Court will determine if medical providers can continue providing abortions to pregnant women who are experiencing dire medical conditions. Idaho has a near-total ban on abortion . The state law conflicts with requirements of the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. The Biden administration is attempting to enforce the federal law.

This case also would not be happening if Roe had not been reversed. The federal law requires stabilizing treatment for any emergency medical condition. Idaho takes the position that necessary care will not be provided until the patient’s condition deteriorates to the point where a physician is “objectively certain” that an abortion is needed to save her life.

The consequences of delay could be devastating for women. Consequences of delay in the emergency could include sepsis requiring limb amputation, uncontrollable uterine bleeding, preeclampsia. hypoxic brain injury and permanent fertility issues. Since January 2024, the Supreme Court has allowed Idaho to enforce its law pending the Court’s decision.

The threat to women is not stopping. It is a mistake to see these cases as unrelated. They are part of the anti-abortion movement’s project of entrenching white Christian patriarchal dominance. The lawyers in both the Mifepristone case and the Idaho case are the same. They are from Alliance Defending Freedom, a far right extremist organization that the Southern Law Poverty Center considers a hate group.

It is hard not to wonder what is next: will some ultra-conservative judge say birth control is unconstitutional? Don’t be surprised.

In my last article, I outlined a progressive Democratic agenda 2025 that differentiates sharply from what the Republicans are selling. The Democrats are a big tent and I write with the recognition that some Democrats, likely quite a few, will not share this perspective. My earlier piece did not address a number of critical issues so this piece continues the argument deepening what a progressive Democratic project should be about.

• Democrats oppose economic inequality while Republicans are wedded to the interests of the 1%. The richest families in the U.S. have experienced far greater gains in wealth than other families in recent decades. The richest 1% of households averaged 104 times as much income as the bottom 20% in 2020 according to the Congressional Budget Office. Income and wealth inequality have returned to Gilded Age levels. Democrats favor a far more equitable distribution of income and wealth that would dramatically lessen poverty. Poverty is morally unacceptable in a country as wealthy as America. Changes in the tax code and its enforcement could dramatically improve life for the bottom 80% monetarily. With so many billionaires and millionaires, a wealth tax is an idea whose time has come.
• Homelessness and our housing crisis deserve immediate attention. Democrats favor a housing policy that refocuses attention on our lack of adequate affordable housing. Rents have skyrocketed and for many home ownership has become an impossible dream. Far too many are homeless and too many blame the homeless for this predicament. Instead of blaming the homeless and criminalizing homelessness, Democrats recognize that housing policy must evolve to help a wide swath of people who are struggling to afford the cost of housing. Rent control in some locales, expanded federally subsidized housing and the building of far more housing for low and middle income people are important public policies that Democrats support.
• Democrats support campaign finance reform and disclosure laws which force the exposure of dark money. Several Supreme Court decisions, including Citizens United, have led to political campaigns awash in unlimited often dark money. The law has given the super-rich an unfair advantage allowing them to buy or heavily influence elections. Even worse, we cannot find out who is behind secret mega-donations. Democrats believe in transparency and public financing of elections as a way to promote the fairest outcomes.
• It is time to expand the number of Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court started with six justices. Under President Adams, it went down to five. President Jefferson restored a sixth seat and added one justice. President Jackson added two seats. Later during the Civil War, the court increased to ten and then shrank back to nine justices where it has remained since 1869. It is constitutional to change the number of justices. In light of Republican gamesmanship, we are stuck with an ethically-challenged, out-of-touch Court.. Republicans have packed the present Court which appears to be owned by billionaires. Democrats support Congress expanding the number of justices to make the Court more representative of the American people. For those progressives who belittle the differences between our two parties, I would point to the importance of which party has the opportunity to make court appointments. Contrast Ketanji Brown Jackson with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or Coney Barrett.
• Democrats support a ceasefire and an immediate end to the Israel/Gaza war. This war is a humanitarian catastrophe with absolutely horrible loss of life. Although the Hamas attack on October 7 was a war crime, Israel’s response has been a drastic overreaction. Democrats support an end to hostilities, release of hostages and an infusion of massive humanitarian aid to prevent starvation and disease.
• American foreign policy needs much more reliance on diplomacy and much less on war, militarism, and feeding the military-industrial complex. Democrats favor significant cuts to the military budget and a far less interventionist foreign policy. After both the pointless wars in Vietnam and Iraq , Democrats support a thorough reassessment of our goals of empire. Americans have been repeatedly misled into war. We must insist in the strongest fashion that nuclear war never be fought. There would be no winners.
• Democrats oppose racism and white supremacy and we believe in a de-segregated society. Whether it is school re-segregation or residential segregation, America has been moving backwards. Democrats acknowledge that America was founded on our two great national sins: slavery and genocide of Native Americans. Democrats are committed to an honest recognition of these sins along with an action agenda to address them. Republicans pretend to phony colorblindness. Their attacks on critical race theory and Diversity Equity and Inclusion programs are a thinly veiled retreat back to white supremacy.
• Hate is un-American. Whether it is against trans people, other LGBTQ people, Jews, Muslims, African-Americans or Latinos, the hate being spewed by MAGA Republicans is disgusting. Democrats support tolerance and understanding toward all minorities. Scapegoating a group is all too reminiscent of white supremacist hate groups who have played too prominent a role in the American past as reflected in lynchings.
• Democrats are committed to science and intellectual honesty unlike the Republicans who have become the party of the Big Lie, conspiracy theories and misinformation. Whether the issue is climate change or the efficacy of vaccines, America cannot retreat into a world of lies. Intellectual dishonesty can only lead to disaster. If Republicans cannot even accept the fact that Biden won in 2020, you have to wonder what other facts they won’t accept. Being unable to accept facts and inventing your own world is a recipe for a nightmare.

Numerous observers have commented on the vital importance of the 2024 electoral race. Democrats have a potentially powerful agenda. People who think there is no difference between the parties are living in a state of delusion. While there is certainly internal division among Democrats, at least they are fighting over progressive steps and the best way to achieve them.

About the Republicans, I am reminded of a quote from James Baldwin:

“People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster.”

2024 promises to be fascinating.

Many close observers of the 2024 presidential race have commented on Project 2025, the Republican plan for what they intend to do if Trump wins in November. The plan is a maximalist horror show that includes a far right wish list in every area of life. Drafted by the Heritage Foundation, there is nothing shy about it.

The Republican Party has degenerated into a party that will take America from democracy to dictatorship and fascism. As the historian Timothy Snyder has pointed out, when you vote a strongman in, you vote out the rule of law.

Many Democrats are genuinely alarmed by Project 2025 but instead of proposing an offensive strategy, they respond in a defensive way. This leads to emphasizing how bad Trump is and suggesting Biden will restore normalcy and moderation. It doesn’t present any idea of the changes a Biden re-election would represent.

I would suggest a completely different approach. Regardless of what Democrats actually say, Republicans will call us “socialists”. Democrats should have their own maximalist progressive wish list that contrasts sharply with the far right. That will give voters a much sharper picture of the difference between the two parties. Here’s my Progressive Agenda 2025. In compiling this list, I have consulted with no one. This is my list.

• Democrats support expanding democracy and we oppose fascism. Republicans pose the most dangerous threat since the Civil War to the well-being and freedom of all Americans. Trump says he will be a dictator on day one. He promises a police state, invoking the Insurrection Act. Because of the criminal charges he faces, Trump would never allow another fair and free election where he could lose. He threatens a free press and anyone who criticizes him. In contrast, Democrats propose expanding voting rights through automatic voter registration. The United States has one of the lowest voter turnout rates among developed nations. More than a quarter of eligible voters are not registered to vote. Democrats support expanded voting, not voter suppression and undemocratic gerrymandering.
• Democrats stand with working people and we oppose mass layoffs. Democrats should not be telling workers how great things are. They are not. All working-class people are threatened by mass layoffs because of Wall Street greed. In 2024, more than 262,000 people lost their jobs and another 41,700 so far this year. Tech workers have been especially hard hit. As the writer Les Leopold argues in his book, Wall Street’s War on Workers, mass layoffs are the most salient economic issue facing the working class. Democrats should place job stability at the center of their demands.
• Democrats should support Sen. Bernie Sanders’ idea to enact a 32-hour workweek with no loss in pay. When Shawn Fain, UAW president, just spoke in support of Sanders’ 32-hour workweek legislation in Congress, he pointed out that in 1933 the U.S. Senate passed legislation to enact a 30-hour workweek but it failed due to corporate opposition. It has been 84 years since FDR signed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1940 establishing a 40 hour workweek, Change is long overdue.
• Democrats must fight to make union organizing easier. An overwhelming majority of Americans support unions but federal law has until recently been tipped heavily in favor of employers. Democrats should support the Protecting the Right to Organize Act that has the goal to make union organizing and bargaining easier.
• A Green New Deal must be supported. In contrast to the Republican climate change deniers, Democrats must recognize the climate emergency and take immediate action toward the goals of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% renewable energy. Part of the Green New Deal is a federal jobs guarantee with jobs at a livable wage, Medicare for All, universal paid family and medical leave and a tax on the super-rich.
• Abortion rights, the right to birth control and womens’ reproductive rights deserve our strongest support. Trump strongly stands behind the Supreme Court’s decision taking away women’s right to choose. Republicans are likely to support a national abortion ban, invocation of the Comstock Act, ending access to abortion pills as well as opposition to IVF. All these policies are deeply unpopular. Never have Americans lost a right they held for 50 years. Democrats should try and put the right to choose on every ballot in every state across the country. Democrats support choice.
• Democrats oppose the hate, dehumanization and racism directed against immigrants by Trump and the Republicans. We need order at the border but we also need a legal path to citizenship. Also the right to asylum is an international human right and America must continue its tradition of allowing that right. The MAGA Republicans have been spewing hate in all directions including against LGBTQ people, Asian Americans, Muslims, Jews, Latinos and African Americans. Democrats oppose all hate. Republicans talk about deporting millions of immigrants and putting them in concentration camps. This is Hitler-talk and Democrats are unalterably opposed to treating anyone in such a dehumanized fashion.
• Democrats should support the most expansive student debt relief. It is crazy that a four year college experience can cost over $200,000. That places an unreasonable burden on student debtors. As a matter of public policy, Democrats don’t see student debtors as morally culpable for the creation of a system that weighs the heaviest on the students who have the least.
• Democrats must work to reduce gun-related deaths. Universal background checks, banning high-capacity ammunition magazines, banning assault-style weapons and raising the minimum age for buying guns to 21 are all reasonable reforms that should be supported. No right is absolute and the horrible price we have been paying in mass shooting events, domestic violence-related gun deaths and suicides by gun should lead to change.
• Contrary to what Republicans are saying, we were not better off four years ago. Trump totally mismanaged COVID-19. That led to hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. Being anti-science and opposing vaccines is stupid which is not surprising from a party that supports book banners

Democrats are now the only major party that supports democracy. The MAGA Republicans are a cult of personality wedded to the whims of one sadistic man. They stand for whatever he says. How pathetic!

There has been much nonsense written about the white working class and their supposed support for Trump. The hard core of MAGA is more made up of upper middle class people and business owners. Some of Trump’s working class support would desert him if Democrats spoke to them and opposed Wall Street’s greed.

Democrats need to stop being afraid of their own shadows. Our views are right on in 2024.

Up until the recent Alabama Supreme Court decision, the concept of extrauterine children was foreign to me. It is a hard concept to wrap your head around. I hadn’t seriously considered the idea that frozen embryos were children. However people spin it, there is a big difference between a zygote or a small cluster of cells and a live person.

The Court argued that from the moment of conception, a fertilized egg has the same rights as a born human. Such a conclusion, supporting fetal personhood, is grounded in the most profound sexism and disregard for women and their rights. There is no equivalence.

The Court decision has caused massive confusion and chaos as it threw a monkey wrench into all assisted-reproductive treatments in Alabama. The Court effectively side-lined in vitro fertilization or IVF. Doctors remained uncertain if they could face severe criminal penalties for “wrongful death” if they continued a practice previously lauded.

Many would-be parents who had heavily invested in IVF treatment were left high and dry, not knowing if their treatments would continue. It appeared the Court had no idea how IVF works. Roughly half of fertilized eggs don’t naturally implant and are flushed out. Is that murder? Please.

I am reminded of a line from George Carlin’s routine about abortion: “Does every ejaculation deserve a name?”

IVF is about helping couples succeed at having a child. It is a complicated series of procedures designed to give a woman the best chance to get pregnant. IVF has helped many couples experiencing a range of infertility issues.

The irony is that the pro-life movement is roadblocking and potentially prosecuting parents who want to have kids. IVF procedures typically require more than one embryo-zygote. Embryos are commonly destroyed to get one successfully fertilized and implanted.

Fetal personhood conflicts with and diminishes the reproductive rights of pregnant women and girls. The Court is elevating the rights of a zygote over grown adults and young people. Even worse, it criminalizes women and girls for exercising their reproductive rights and making their own decisions. You have male jurists imposing patriarchal control over women and girls.

A look at the Alabama decision quickly shows that its rationale is not in law – it is in the Bible. In his opinion, Alabama Chief Justice Tom Parker cited the Books of Genesis, Exodus and Jeremiah. This is a judge who apparently believes the United States is a theocracy. The Bible is his basis for defining frozen embryos as people.

But we are not a theocracy. We have a separation of church and state written in the First Amendment. That amendment states, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” The Alabama Chief Justice is imposing his religion on the rest of us.

Robert Reich compared the Alabama IVF court case to the Scopes monkey trial in 1925. In that case, the state of Tennessee made it illegal to teach human evolution in Tennessee schools. The judge in Scopes also quotes the Book of Genesis at the outset of the trial just like Chief Justice Parker in Alabama.

It took until 1968 for the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the issues raised in Scopes. The Court in Epperson v Arkansas ruled that government in our democracy must be neutral on matters of religious theory. Because the primary purpose of the Arkansas anti-teaching of evolution law was religious, it contravened the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Alabama Chief Justice’s opinion is a tip-off that far more is going on than simple opposition to IVF treatment. The Christian Right, of which Chief Justice Parker is a part, has been jet-propelled by Justice Samuel Alito’s Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v Wade. They have a broadly misogynistic and anti-gay agenda that has multiple prongs.

The agenda includes banning IVF as well as specific forms of birth control like the morning after pill and IUDs. They oppose all abortions without exception. They have the Mifepristone case at the Supreme Court. Additionally, they aim to reverse and outlaw same sex marriage and roll back LGBTQ rights. They hope to pass legislation to allow taxpayer money to fund private and religious schools, a project that has already had some success.

Where the Alabama case leads is towards mass criminalization of pregnant people. Pregnant women and girls are facing prosecution on the pretext of protecting “unborn life”.

In her book Policing the Womb, Michele Goodwin thoroughly exposes the trend toward criminal punishment of pregnant women. Every pregnancy becomes a potential crime. Penalties include criminal and civil incarceration for miscarriage and stillbirth, as well as punishments for behaviors perceived to threaten fetal health. Witness the recent case of Brittany Watts of Ohio. She was prosecuted for “abuse of a corpse” after a miscarriage. Fortunately the grand jury did not indict.

The hypocrisy of the Christian Right could not be more extreme. The concern for life ends when the fetus is born. The states with the strictest abortion laws do the least when it comes to maternal mortality, child wellness, food security and access to affordable health care.

Republicans were so freaked out about the possible political consequences of the Alabama Supreme Court decision that they promoted and approved a bill providing civil and criminal immunity for IVF providers and recipients. The Alabama legislature skirted the matter of fetal personhood. No way will Christian Right extremists accept what the Alabama legislature did.

We can expect more lawsuits against IVF as many anti-abortion Republicans want more restrictions on IVF treatments such as having a process for dealing with embryos once households achieve their family goals. These Republicans believe a frozen embryo represents a life.

The Alabama case is not over. It has just begun. In this election year, Democrats and all who support women’s reproductive rights must make Republicans own their anti-IVF position.

Usually I harbor low expectations about how the U.S. Supreme Court will rule. That is because of the far right plurality on the Court that rarely deviates from the Federalist Society “billionaires are us” party line. But even my very low expectations were disappointed by how the Court chose to approach Donald Trump’s appeal of his presidential immunity case.

The Court is supposed to be above politics but in taking this appeal it is like they were returning some MAGA favor. This is a case the Court had absolutely no need to engage. Judge Tanya Chutkan in the federal court and the unanimous D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals had decimated Trump’s arguments.

You don’t have to be a lawyer to appreciate the absurdity of Trump’s legal argument. His legal team argued presidents should be forever immune from criminal prosecution for crimes they commit during their presidency.

That is the definition of a dictator. Or as Judge Chutkan previously wrote Trump’s four years as president didn’t give him the “divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens”. Trump’s argument has chutzpah but its extremism is obvious. No way will the Supreme Court side with Trump on the merits.

The thing is, this case is not about the merits. It is about the far right supermajority of the Court running out the clock for Trump so that he doesn’t face accountability before the election for his efforts to overthrow our constitutional republic. The Supreme Court is well aware of the timeline between now and the election in November,

The way they have slow-walked the case is telling. Judge Chutkan decided the immunity issue back on December 1, 2023. The federal prosecutor Jack Smith made a bold move on December 11. He tried to expedite the decision process by jumping the Court of Appeals and having the Supreme Court take charge. The Court refused. After the D.C. Circuit decision, Smith tried again to get the Court to move quickly. The Court had the option to decline accepting the case, a case with no merit.

Instead, the Court took two weeks to issue a one page scheduling order and say that the case would be heard seven weeks later, on April 22. No one knows how quickly after that the Court will decide. They have not acted with alacrity. They could conceivably wait until the end of the Court’s term in late June to decide the case.

The problem is delay increases the chances no federal prosecution will occur before the election this fall. This is the Trump strategy – delay, delay, delay. That way Trump could make it to the election without being convicted of any federal felony charges, a result that enhances his presidential re-election prospects.

Judge Chutkan, who sits on the January 6 case against Trump, has allowed for 88 days for Trump lawyers to complete trial preparations once the pause is released. This pushes the timeframe back so much that the chances of a trial being completed before the election are greatly diminished. A January 6 trial could easily take three months.

Courts can choose to act quickly. That was true in Bush v Gore and also in U.S. v Nixon. The Court knows exactly what it is doing in taking its sweet time. It is a giant gift to Trump and the Republican Party. It is a certainty that some percentage of Republicans would balk at voting for a convicted felon.

The public has a right to know whether or not Donald Trump is guilty of federal crimes before the election. By depriving the voters of that knowledge, the far right majority of the Court is lending a helping hand to their political friend.

How Justice Clarence Thomas is allowed to be a part of any January 6 proceeding when he has a clear conflict of interest is beyond troubling. For those who may have forgotten, Justice Thomas’s wife, Ginni, was an organizer and active participant in January 6 events. The failure of Thomas to recuse is unethical, corrupt and has the appearance of impropriety. He has an interest in protecting his wife.

Thomas should not be participating in any decision about whether the Court would take the immunity case. Where is Chief Justice John Roberts with his new toothless Code of Conduct? The inaction humiliates the Court. Apparently Roberts wants everyone to look the other way and pretend the corruption before our eyes isn’t happening.

There is one takeaway from the Court’s action around the immunity case that has been insufficiently called out. That is the role of money in how our justice system operates. In 2023, Donald Trump spent $50 million in attorney fees. No doubt 2024 will continue that pace with another ungodly sum burned through.

In America you can have all the justice you can buy. Justice has been reduced to a purchasable commodity. This is really about the two-tiered system of justice under capitalism. It is a different system for the super-rich who buy their way out of jail. For poor and low income people, there is mass incarceration for much less significant crimes than those committed by Trump.

Trump’s resources have enabled him to lawyer around outrageous criminal conduct. It is a finagling capacity refined over 50 years of practice. What could be more outrageous than a coup to overturn a fair democratic election? That defines big. Trump’s successful use of delay reflects our legal system’s soft stance toward white collar crime. In his book about the Supreme Court, Supreme Inequalty, Adam Cohen writes:

“In criminal cases involving wealthy and powerful defendants or ones who do not fit the “traditional” model of what a criminal is, the Court has frequently second-guessed prosecutors, given defendants the benefit of the doubt and found ways of reading criminal law narrowly to overturn convictions. “

Money doesn’t guarantee success in every case. The New York civil cases against Trump show that but all the lawyering leading to delay has greatly served Trump’s interests. He may never have to stand trial for either the January 6 case or the Mar-a-lago documents case.

If he wins the presidency again, one of Trump’s first acts will be to fire Jack Smith and to dismiss the federal cases against himself. Assuming the Supreme Court rules that presidents are not immune from prosecution which is an almost certainty, Trump would have powerful incentive to never leave office. Leaving office would mean the return of federal charges and likely jail time. That is why many believe 2024 could be our last democratic election if Trump wins.

Trump is the unusual criminal defendant not looking for a speedy trial. Never has the old saying “justice delayed is justice denied” more aptly fit a situation.