Trump Attorney’s Shocking Claim: Kavanaugh Will Side with Ex-President Due to Past Favors!

Join whatsapp group Join Now
Join Telegram group Join Now

On Thursday, an attorney representing former President Trump, Alina Habba, implied that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh might rule in favor of Trump because of the support he received from the former president. This suggestion came after Trump filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a Colorado Supreme Court decision that barred him from the presidential primary ballot, citing the Constitution’s “insurrectionist” clause.

Trump expressed confidence in the Supreme Court’s potential to overturn the ruling but also voiced concerns that the justices he appointed might fear being seen as biased against him.

During an interview with Fox News, Habba echoed Trump’s concerns about the Court’s impartiality potentially affecting their decisions. She suggested that the Court, in striving for neutrality, might sometimes make incorrect judgments. However, in a subsequent appearance on the same network with Sean Hannity, Habba expressed strong confidence that the case should be straightforward in the Supreme Court.

She implied that justices like Kavanaugh, who Trump fiercely supported and fought to appoint despite challenges, would prioritize upholding the law’s fairness and clarity rather than showing explicit favoritism towards Trump.

Habba: 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.— Acyn (@Acyn) January 5, 2024

CNN’s Phil Mattingly and panelist Jon Avlon reacted strongly to Habba’s statements, suggesting that her comments hinted at potential bias in Kavanaugh’s rulings due to his appointment by Trump, which goes against the fundamental principles of judicial independence and the rule of law.

Legal experts, including Bradley Moss, Katie Phang, and Mark Zaid, criticized Habba’s remarks, considering them unprofessional and highlighting the impropriety in suggesting a quid pro quo relationship between a justice and the president who appointed them. They also emphasized the potential scandal that would arise if similar comments were made by an attorney representing other political figures.

Leave a Comment