This article is awful and jumps to conclusions without much evidence.

For example, the justices asked Trump's lawyer a question, the lawyer gave a controversial answer, and moved on to the next question. The article takes this as evidence that the court is somehow siding with Trump?

But the justices did not laugh this argument out of court. Quite the contrary: At least five of the justices seemed to buy into the Trump team’s arguments that...

Judges ask questions to clarify the argument, and stop asking once the arguments are clear. That doesn't mean they agree with them, it just means they understand them well enough to continue to the next argument.

So either this author doesn't understand the judicial process, or they have an agenda, and they certainly have an agenda (about page makes this clear). But to make that even more clear, they say this:

This delay all but guarantees that Trump will not stand trial for anything besides the current hush-money case before the 2024 election.

This seems to be what the author is really concerned about: the election.

To be fair, I'm concerned about it too, but I'm not going to attack the courts until they actually make a decision. And yeah, delays suck, especially during an election where you'd like a decision before the campaigns really get going. That said, we should think beyond this one election because the decisions made on this case will set precedent.

Obligatory screw Trump, of course, but we should also respect the institutions we have.