156

Alina Habba hopes Kavanaugh rewards Trump for SCOTUS appointment, overturns Colorado decision (lawandcrime.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Donald Trump attorney Alina Habba caused an uproar with her appearance Thursday on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show in which she seemingly suggested that Justice Brett Kavanaugh owes it to the former president who appointed him to the Supreme Court to “step up” and overturn Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to boot Trump from the ballot under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Habba, appearing in the capacity of Trump’s “legal spokeswoman,” was asked for her take on how the U.S. Supreme Court might rule on an issue that’s been litigated in states across the country as the quadruply indicted former president pursues reelection.

…

“I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court. I have faith in them. You know, people like Kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place, he’ll step up, those people will step up,” Habba said, before appearing to catch herself. “Not because they are pro-Trump, but because they are pro-law, because they are pro-fairness, and the law on this is very clear.”

top 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] [email protected] 49 points 8 months ago

I know it's hard to remember some earlier Trump scandals because he just has scandal after scandal. But do you remember his first impeachment trial, when it was thrown out so much that there was "quid pro quo", that Trump was constantly putting that phrase into his speeches. You know, like "It was a perfect phone call. There was no quid pro quo."

Of course, Trump thinks he's some sort of mafia boss, so quid pro quo is basically everything he does. You know, like, "If I do this for you, you'll owe me a favor." That sort of thing.

Anyways, back to this news story, what Habba is suggesting is that Kavanaugh should engage in "quid pro quo" with Trump.

The reason I bring this up is that it's just one of those phrases that Trump has gone mental on in the past. I try not to listen to Trump, so for all I know, maybe he's still talking about it. But anyways, I can imagine people reacting to Habba here by using that phrase, and Trump might go crazy about it again.

[-] [email protected] 43 points 8 months ago

I wonder if she realizes… asking (or demanding) favors in return for prior favors is a great way to get justices to recuse themselves.

Well, it would be if SCROTUS had any integrity.

[-] [email protected] 17 points 8 months ago

They literally do not give a shit.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Of course not. SCROTUS shit composts into grade AAAx organic fertilizer. That stuff is valuable.

[-] [email protected] 28 points 8 months ago

It's weird. This lady keeps repeating "the law is very clear." Which I 100% agree with. Yet she's coming to the exact opposite conclusion that I am.

The law says insurrectionists can't hold office. Clear as day. Yet she's reading that and going "yep, it's clear as day. Insurrectionists can hold office."

[-] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

She's claiming he can't be an insurrectionist because he hasn't been charged or convicted of being one.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago

Right, which is a perfect example of taking something that is clear as day, and then intentionally muddying it up.

[-] [email protected] 26 points 8 months ago

Aaannnddddd... there you go. Nothing in the appointment was fair and unbiased.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

"but...but guys he just really likes beer and didn't rape the lady"

[-] [email protected] 22 points 8 months ago

Why can't someone get Alina Habba disbarred? There is surely cause.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

The case would go to scotus, and then to the trash

[-] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

I don’t think that’s how disbarment works

[-] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago

I’m not sure that word means what you think it means?

[-] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

are you sure about that

[-] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago

Disbarment can be contested and could eventually end up in the Supreme Court. Since the Supreme Court is in the pocket of the right-wing it is plausible they would overturn it.

[-] [email protected] 22 points 8 months ago

Of course, since that’s how legal arguments are supposed to be. Pick a conclusion and make up a bunch of shit to support it.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

SCOTUS is bought and paid for.

this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024

156 points (94.8% liked)

politics

18894 readers

3458 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News