Staff Reports
Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz has expressed his discontent with Judge Juan Merchan’s antics surrounding the sentencing hearing for President-elect Donald Trump. Dershowitz claims that Merchan’s decision to announce a no-punishment sentence for Trump is no more than a cleverly disguised attempt to shield the U.S. Supreme Court from having any say in the matter.
According to Dershowitz, the judge’s theatrical sentencing move seems timed perfectly to dissuade justices from stepping in when Trump and his legal team made a plea for their intervention. The situation has all the makings of a courtroom drama that leaves the viewers—specifically those in the conservative crowd—scratching their heads at the apparent absurdities of the judicial process. Rather than ensuring fair treatment, it appears Merchan is sticking to a script that favors political theatrics over justice.
Alan Dershowitz EXPLODES in rage following Trump's sentencing, says, "You can't be a convicted felon if there's no crime, and there is no crime here." He adds that Judge Juan Merchan played Supreme Court Justices by announcing in advance he was not going to send Trump to prison pic.twitter.com/vq1YPKdzvH
— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) January 10, 2025
Dershowitz has noted that what should have been a straightforward hearing turned into nothing short of a circus act. He claimed that by revealing the sentence beforehand, Judge Merchan played a disingenuous game that could compel the Supreme Court justices not to intervene. It appears the judge’s antics are seen as a tactic intended to manipulate the narrative around Trump, making the whole thing look like a setup. The seasoned legal expert detailed his disbelief over such a procedure, lamenting that he has never experienced a judge disclosing a verdict in advance.
In his comments to Fox News, Dershowitz described the judge’s maneuvering as more than questionable; he labeled it as a “ploy” and a “scam.” The sentiment in conservative circles suggests that such tactics are symptomatic of a judicial system that is more concerned with theatrics than justice. The idea that Merchan’s advance announcement of Trump’s sentence was meant to sidestep judicial oversight appears to further politicize what should be a blind and fair legal process.
As if that wasn’t enough to raise eyebrows, Dershowitz went on to claim this development is the worst blow to the American criminal justice system since the era of McCarthyism. He framed it as an attack on the very fabric of justice in America, comparing it to prior civil rights violations. The timing of such statements is no accident; they resonate strongly with those who feel the legal system is being weaponized against political figures, especially when those figures happen to be Trump.
Ultimately, the question remains—how such questionable legal maneuvers will impact public perception and the future of the judicial process. Conservative voices continue to tune in to this unfolding drama, fully aware that the implications stretch far beyond one presidential candidate and could influence the course of American justice for years to come.
