Donald Trump may never face trial over January 6th after the Supreme Court's stunning decision to review his immunity claim.

The court's move has outraged liberals, with many accusing the conservative majority of selfish political motives.

Joy Reid took this unfounded speculation another step, claiming that Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are trying to preserve their legacy by orchestrating Trump's re-election.

Joy Reid's retirement theory

Both Thomas and Alito have come under pressure from the left over their friendships with wealthy Republican donors.

Reid claimed that both men, who are in their 70s, want to help Trump win the election so they can retire under a second Trump administration, which would allow Trump to choose their successors.

“Well, I am not a lawyer, and I am an opinion journalist, and I’m telling you right now, you just described the motive,” Reid told one of her guests.

"Why they would want Donald Trump to win—so that those two gentlemen can retire and take trips all the time and not just on down time for their court decisions that helped Republicans and rich people," she said.

Is the Supreme Court scheming, or doing its job?

It appears that the left is having trouble distinguishing the normal operations of a lawful system from an insidious political conspiracy.

For Democrats like Reid, it's self-evident that Trump's immunity claim is nothing but a bogus delay tactic, and the Supreme Court's failure to see that is somehow discrediting.

But obviously, the Supreme Court thinks there is an important legal question that needs to be addressed.

President Trump has argued that without criminal immunity for "official acts", presidents would have to fear retaliation from rogue prosecutors on leaving office.

With the political climate becoming increasingly divided, that's far from a hypothetical scenario - and it's one that, Trump argues, is playing out right now in his own court battles.

In any event, the Supreme Court doesn't need a nefarious motive to hear a momentous case like this. The court is simply doing its job.

If Democrats want someone to blame for the delay, they should look to Jack Smith, who waited until a presidential election year to charge ahead with an ambitious prosecution of an American president.

Liberals are now getting a lesson on checks and balances - and they don't like it one bit.