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.”
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.
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.
They literally do not give a shit.
Of course not. SCROTUS shit composts into grade AAAx organic fertilizer. That stuff is valuable.
Aaannnddddd… there you go. Nothing in the appointment was fair and unbiased.
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.”
She’s claiming he can’t be an insurrectionist because he hasn’t been charged or convicted of being one.
Right, which is a perfect example of taking something that is clear as day, and then intentionally muddying it up.
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.
SCOTUS is bought and paid for.
