'Nefarious': Law professor says Supreme Court signaled bias for Trump with recent ruling

The highest court's move to hear arguments on whether or not Trump is untouchable criminally is reportedly playing into a stalling tactic by his legal team with the Nov. 5 election date nearing, and invites bad optics.

Legal scholar and University of Texas Law Professor Steve Vladeck's appearing on CNN's "The Situation Room" said he is convinced the nine justices are inviting warranted criticism when it comes to feet dragging with former President Donald Trump's seminal cases.

"The problem is that this is going to feel to a lot of folks watching at home, like the Court is by and for former President Trump, another 7 or 8 weeks, gosh, maybe even three months when you factor in how long it will take the Court to rule of delay in the January 6 prosecution — even in a context in which I still think it's likely that Trump is going to lose," he said. "And I think this gets to the broader problem, which is as these cases get backed up against the timing of the election year, every little delay on the Court's part looks like it is nefarious; looks like it's substantive, and bodes at least in the short-term well, for former President Trump."

ALSO READ: ‘America First’ is Trump first, Russia close second

The 6-3 conservative majority of the Supreme Court confirmed on Wednesday that it would weigh in on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted on charges he meddled with the 2020 election in the leadup and during the Jan. 6. 2021, riot at the Capitol.

They also heard oral arguments to determine if Trump should be booted from Colorado's primary ballot over his actions surrounding the effort to stop the election certification that led to the deadly attack on that day.

The former president, who is the GOP frontrunner to nab the nomination, remains on the ballot for March 5's Super Tuesday election.

Vladeck found it impressive "how fast the court moved to hold argument in that case" where it took about five weeks to weigh in versus the immunity case which clocked in closer to seven or eight weeks.

"And yet, even though it's now it's been gosh, three weeks tomorrow since the oral arguments, still no decision... what that suggests to me is that the Court really doesn't feel like it's in a hurry."

Watch the video below or click the link.