Public feels ‘an erosion of confidence’ in Supreme Court decision making: legal analyst

Joining me now, Catherine Christian, former assistant District Attorney of Manhattan, now MSNBC legal analyst. Catherine, good to see you. The question is, do you agree with Senator Murphy that there is a crisis on the court? Well, I think there's confidence that is being eroded by the public in the the court. You always look to at least I as a lawyer and even before I became a lawyer, as a person of color, you know, Brown V. Board of Education, separate but equal someone who cares about criminal defendants rights, Miranda V Arizona, you have to advise someone with their right to have an attorney. We always look to the court as to having the last word and the right word on decisions that affect our life. And then when you hear about, you know, a judge and I'm, I actually think judge, judge the situation on top of, you know, receiving all the gifts, you know, his spouse was part of a big supporter of the stop the steal all of the January 6 cases. What happened on that day? So when you hear that, that these conflicts and that the judiciary, the, the Supreme Court judges basically abide by their own rules and you can't remove them unless you're going to impeach them. And nothing so far, I think, has been impeachable. Then people in the public, you know, put their hands up and say, this is this is our court. So I don't know if it's a crisis, but there certainly is an erosion of the confidence in their decisions. The president referred to upside down flags and said the court's out of kilter, that it's out of step. How unusual is it for a president to openly criticize the Supreme Court? Well, you might remember President Obama did once at the State of the Union. And I think that was interesting. George Alito, who called out in the middle of that, I think he's never been back to a State of the Union. So it's unusual. But, you know, one could argue that this was an appropriate time to to criticize the court. You know, you have separation of powers. But if one of the branches of judge of of government is sort of, you know, going overboard, it's it's appropriate for another branch to criticize them. Let's get to Donald Trump's immunity claim because it is arguably the most important decision the Supreme Court will make. Do you or how do you interpret the delay releasing that ruling? I mean, is it fair to conclude that at least some justices are somehow trying to help Trump? Well, I think it's fair to conclude that it's not going to be 90. I hope I'm wrong. And it's 90 that says that a president, a former president, is not immune from criminal prosecution for criminal acts that he or she does while we're president. But it could just be, you know, this, they know that this is a hot potato, that this is a very big decision. And, you know, it's going to probably be one of the last that they issue. And it'll be interesting decision because what will the lineup be and will it be in the special counsel's favor? And that means that President Trump is not immune from prosecution. So therefore, he goes back to the court and a trial can happen. That doesn't mean the trial is going to happen before Election Day. Or will it be the president is immune from prosecution for some acts but not others. And therefore the District Court judge has to decide which ones they are. And therefore that means there will be no trial before Election Day. That's guaranteed. So it's it's a very, very, I don't need to say it's an understatement to say it's a very important decision because determine, you know, whether or not Donald Trump will ever be put on trial for the alleged acts of crimes that he committed. But when you say you hope it's going to be 90, you may not expect it, but you hope that. Do you hope that based on opinion or on based on law and precedent? Law and also the confidence. It's very important when I'm going to go back to Brown V. Board of Education, when the public sees that all nine justices are on the same page, that separate is not equal. It also be very important here that all nine justices are on the same page. That know a president can't order a hit on his political opponent and have the Navy SEAL do that, which that sort of came up in the the the the Circuit Court argument that they're all on the same page that yes, there's obviously, you know, there should be immunity for civil lawsuits and you just can't sue a president and stop them for for any frivolous lawsuit. But when a president commits actual crimes, you know he should be. She should be. If there we ever have one prosecuted for those crimes, it should not be. You don't get a get out of jail free card because you've become president and then you get to commit actual crimes. Catherine Christian, it's always illuminating. We got a wise to wait yet till we see how this one gets ruled, but we'll do so with your help. Thank you so much.