Well, the lefties can stop freaking out over delays in ruling on Donald Trump's presidential immunity claims, delaying the Trump trial they think will get Biden re-elected. The appeals court ruled against Trump on Tuesday. His appeals will continue.
But 
Washington Post columnist and associate editor Ruth Marcus let the cat out of the bag on their hopes for lawfare to ruin Trump's campaign. The very title of her opinion piece on Friday admits to that, "Slowpoke federal appeals court puts 2024 election in jeopardy."
The theme of her frantic diatribe is that the orderly appeals process of how the justice system is supposed to work is interfering with the election interference she and her fellow liberals are desperately desiring since things look quite dire for Biden at the moment.
Here is Marcus sounding every bit as deranged on the subject of Donald Trump as MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner or Keith Olbermann:
It is approaching four weeks since a federal appeals court considered Donald Trump’s audacious claim that he should enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for his actions as president. Under ordinary circumstances, it can take months for appellate judges to produce a ruling. In the current case, this delay borders on unconscionable. It plays right into Trump’s hands.
So Marcus admits that "under normal circumstances, it can take months for appellate judges to produce a ruling," yet this infuriates her because somehow playing by the normal rules somehow "plays right into Trump's hands" and this she finds to be "unconscionable."
What’s going on? The immunity panel included two Biden appointees — Florence Pan and Michelle Childs — and a George H.W. Bush nominee, Karen Henderson. They appeared disposed to rule against Trump, but perhaps a concurring or even dissenting opinion is slowing things down. Your honors, the clock is ticking more loudly every day.
Hurry! Before it is too late to use lawfare election interference to stop Trump!
Marcus proceeds to continue going full kvetch for several paragraphs expressing her angst over the delay caused by Trump's immunity appeal. Finally she amazingly suggests that the normal rules for appeal be bypassed because she wants Trump stopped at any cost.
What can be done? The appeals court, delayed decision notwithstanding, has demonstrated its awareness of the need for quick action; it set an expedited schedule for briefing and oral argument. When the panel finally rules, it must take care to set limits that prevent Trump from exploiting the usual deadlines for filing appeals. As a useful analysis from Protect Democracy in Just Security demonstrates, Trump would ordinarily have 30 days to ask for review by the full appeals court, and 90 days after that to go to the high court.
But both the appeals court and the Supreme Court have mechanisms to frustrate this kind of gamesmanship. They can set tighter deadlines and allow pretrial preparation to go forward while they weigh any appeal. Justice has been delayed enough already.
Wow. So Marcus admits that Trump has the right to take 30 days to ask for review by the full appeals court and 90 days to later appeal to the Supreme Court but she wants that changed because... Trump!
