i still dont get what this delay can 'fix'.
if the judge does anything substantial, like throw out certain verdicts, it will open up further delays via defense tactics.
or maybe that is inevitable anyway, so one might as well slap max sentencing down on trump ASAP.

The judge is supposed to do his best to make correct decisions.

The defense has filed a motion to set aside the verdict based on the SCOTUS decision. The judge's role is to consider that motion seriously, on the merits, like any and every other motion filed in the court. Not just conclude that he "might as well" just impose a sentence on the defendant ASAP because the defense will inevitably raise these on appeal. If the defense has legitimately raised a valid reason for setting aside the verdict based on the SCOTUS' ruling on immunity - which was timely raised by the defense early in the case in objecting to certain evidence - then the judge has to consider that.

The purpose of the delay is to give both the defense and the prosecution time to analyze the SCOTUS decision, which all sides would agree broke some new ground on the law governing immunity, and to make their legal arguments to the court. Even if the judge ultimately rules that no relief is appropriate under the SCOTUS ruling, basic due process means that the defendant has the right to make their argument. The judge could have set a much shorter timeframe, and even forced the defense to make their arguments within normal post-trial deadlines - but the prosecution had no objection to the delay, so there's no reason not to grant it.