155

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

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

15 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 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] logicbomb@lemmy.world 49 points 10 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.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 43 points 10 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.

[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 17 points 10 months ago

They literally do not give a shit.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 28 points 10 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."

[-] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

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

[-] DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

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

[-] tover153@lemmynsfw.com 22 points 10 months ago

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

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago

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

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

I don’t think that’s how disbarment works

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee -2 points 10 months ago

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

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

are you sure about that

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee -1 points 10 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.

[-] squiblet@kbin.social 21 points 10 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.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

SCOTUS is bought and paid for.

this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024

155 points (94.8% liked)

politics

19096 readers

3249 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
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