When we say that Jack Smith is prosecutorial scum, we mean it in the best way possible. After all, it’s not every lawyer who can boast that his legal tactics have been unanimously rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Smith, who was appointed by corrupt Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland to get rid of his boss’s number one political opponent and his primary threat to reelection, has a deeply checkered history of prosecutorial overzealousness. Just ask Bob McDonnell.

“I basically set up meetings for a businessman in Virginia,” said McDonnell, the former Republican governor of Virginia who was at one time seen as serious presidential material but whose political career was essentially ended by Smith. “I didn’t even go to the meetings. Spoke well of his business which I did for thousands of companies promoting Virginia jobs. And because it was a donor and had given gifts to us which were legal and reported, it was somehow a crime.”

As the Washington Examiner reports: “Smith’s prosecution cost the governor $28 million in legal fees and three-and-a-half years of ‘very difficult times’ for his family. The end result of the investigation and legal troubles was a unanimous Supreme Court decision overturning the governor’s corruption conviction.”

When you’ve lost Ruth Bader Ginsberg, you’ve lost even left-of-center America.

Smith’s other dubious legal overreaches include colluding with Lois Lerner of IRS infamy to target certain conservatives for auditing, and botching the cases against two Democrats — former vice presidential candidate John Edwards and New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez.

As for his case against Trump, former federal prosecutor Will Scharf took it apart on multiple legal grounds, including the criminalization of political speech, the inability to know Trump’s state of mind and legal intent, the misapplication of obstruction law, and the clear-as-day scheduling timeline meant to interfere with the 2024 election. To this last point, ask yourself: Why did Garland and Smith only bring these charges now when the alleged crimes took place nearly three years ago? And what legitimate business does a special prosecutor have with the social media accounts of private citizens who liked or retweeted Donald Trump’s Twitter posts?

Smith, then, isn’t a special prosecutor; he’s a special persecutor.

And so, of all the decent federal prosecutors whom Garland could’ve chosen for the delicate task of bringing a legal case against a former and perhaps future American president, he chose this guy, this thug. It wasn’t a coincidence.

It wasn’t legal, either — at least not according to Ronald Reagan’s former attorney general, Ed Meese.

Meese filed a brief with the Supreme Court on December 20 to request that the High Court reject Smith’s latest dubious legal ploy — his demand for an expedited appeals process on the legal question of presidential immunity from prosecution for the purpose of helping him secure a conviction of Trump prior to the November presidential election.

“Meese,” as Fox News reports, “along with law professors Steven G. Calabresi and Gary S. Lawson, filed a friend-of-the-court brief Wednesday to present the case that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Smith — a private citizen — is in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.”

“Improperly appointed,” the brief argues about Smith, “he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos.”

We don’t know whether the Supremes were persuaded by Meese’s argument, but two days later, they announced that they were declining to issue an expedited ruling. Imagine that. Our nation’s highest court apparently thinks that Trump should be afforded the same due process that the rest of us are entitled to.

Pound sand, the justices explained.

The former president’s criminal trial was scheduled to begin on March 4 in Washington — one day before Super Tuesday, when 15 states will hold their presidential primaries — but it’s unclear if the High Court’s ruling will delay Smith’s carefully choreographed timeline.

Regardless, it’s encouraging to see that the Supreme Court doesn’t believe Jack Smith is above the law, nor Donald Trump beneath it.