OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
An attorney and spokeswoman for Donald Trump blasted the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision earlier this week to toss the former president off the 2024 ballot in the Democrat-run state but added that she believes it is a ruling that will be rapidly overturned by the country’s highest court.
In an interview with “Breitbart News Daily” host Mike Slater, attorney Alina Habba responded to an audio clip of former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb, who told CNN, “So I think this case will be handled quickly. I think it could be 9-0 in the Supreme Court for Trump.”
“Do you agree with that?” Slater asked.
“A hundred percent. A hundred percent. Because it’s, look, this is the problem that I face every day when I go to court. Judges want to make a name for themselves. They think they’re pioneers for the liberal radical left, okay?” Habba responded. “You’re not a pioneer. You’re going to look ridiculous. You do not understand due process. You do not understand the Constitution.”
“You are literally a state-level court that is going to look ridiculous, okay? When the Supreme Court, whether you’re a federal judge or a state judge, when the Supreme Court overturns you, that’s not a good look,” Habba continued.
“And there is no question in my mind. Due process exists for a reason. There has to be some America left. There just has to be. And, this was a very, very, I mean, such a ridiculous decision that I’m not even concerned that the Supreme Court will make the right decision here,” she added.
LISTEN:
100 Percent
.@realDonaldTrump's Lawyer @AlinaHabba agrees that #SCOTUS will overturn the Colorado Supreme Court ruling to disqualify #DonaldTrump from the 2024 ballot.
via @BreitbartNews Daily with @slaterradio #TrumpDisqualified #Trump2024 #Trump pic.twitter.com/GEHbchbeA4— SiriusXM Patriot (@SiriusXMPatriot) December 20, 2023
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court late on Friday denied Special Counsel Jack Smith’s motion to expedite the review of the question of whether or not Trump is immune from prosecution in the federal case involving alleged interference with the 2020 presidential election.
The ruling means that the trial may go beyond its currently planned start date of March 4, reports noted.
Earlier this month, Smith requested that the Supreme Court swiftly decide whether the Republican presidential frontrunner, Trump, is totally immune from prosecution for crimes committed during his presidency.
This assertion has been pivotal to the defense strategy of Trump’s legal team. Following U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s rejection of arguments claiming immunity from the indictment, it sought a stay on proceedings. The appeal is currently pending, so the case’s proceedings have come to a halt.
On Wednesday, attorneys for former Attorney General Ed Meese and two of the top constitutional scholars in the country filed a brief arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court must reject Smith’s petition against Trump because his appointment as special counsel is unconstitutional.
Their amicus brief contends that Smith’s representation of the United States in his petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court is invalid due to his lack of authority. This is because Congress has not established the position he holds, and his appointment is in violation of the Constitution’s “Appointments Clause.”
The filing alleges that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland made an improper appointment of Smith to a non-existent office, for which Garland lacks the necessary authority, Breitbart noted.
Meese, Steven Calabresi, the co-chairman of the Federalist Society, and Gary Lawson, a renowned constitutional law professor, contend that Congress alone has the authority to create federal positions like the one Smith is currently holding, and Congress has not used this power.
Although the Constitution establishes the positions of President and Vice President, Congress possesses exclusive authority to establish additional positions, as the Constitution stipulates that such positions must be “established by law.”
Congress had previously enacted legislation to grant authorization for a comparable role known as “independent counsel.” However, this statute lapsed in 1999.
The lawyers claim that Garland is unable to assign a subordinate to perform tasks that Congress has not approved. Only an individual with the title of “officer” possesses the requisite level of authority.
