And is justice "what's morally right" or "about enforcing the laws Our Democracy has passed"?
I hear a lot about the public's right to a speedy trial. But the public has no right to a speedy trial. We. Do. Not. Matter.
And saying that the trial has to be before an election, because otherwise the election might go the wrong way is asking the judiciary to subordinate legal justice to a party's political aspirations to power. It attempts to coerce the judiciary, to "wrest" justice. Justice delayed is justice denied; justice rushed is justice buried. I'd add, "Justice yoked is justice enslaved."
Note that "speedy" has been redefined in there somewhere. It's there to keep a prosecutor from dumping a defendant in jail for a decade or two with no trial. It's not there to rush the defendant's trial--it's the defendant's right, to some extent s/he gets a say in the pacing, commensurate with what's appropriate so that the trial isn't delayed by a decade or more to ensure the defendant's freedom of action. It, like most constitutional rights, is a limit on governmental action. "Speedy" doesn't mean "hasty" when it's meant to benefit just the prosecution or looky-loos.
You don't gotta like Trump to like liberty. I think the modern US version of Anglo-Saxon law is questionable at times, but I have an aversion to modern EU versions of Roman law, and don't like yoked law. Then again, I just did Russian and Soviet crap, so what do I know about having the courts serve a party?
= new reply since forum marked as read
