Supreme Court Justice Alito takes Trump's call

7,252 Views | 55 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by 2000AgPhD
the most cool guy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

HoustonAg9999 said:

sorry what the outrage here supposed to be? SC judge can't talk to anyone in DC that's in politics? Do they not socialize at all?
More about Trump having a pending petition before SCOTUS at the moment regarding staying Merchan's planned sentencing tomorrow. Granted, that petition is directed to Sotomayor as the AJ having supervisory authotrity over the Second Circuit but court watchers expect her to bring in the rest of the Court.

Same as an ex parte communication. That is the issue here, at least for me.

It's literally not an ex parte communication if they didn't discuss any pending or impending matters.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

It's literally not an ex parte communication if they didn't discuss any pending or impending matters.
What they discussed is not the issue here. It is the appearance of impropriety not the substance.

I am just being consistent here. I strongly objected to Bill and Loretta's tango on the tarmac under the circumstances at that time. Even Loretta had to recuse herself (officially but not in reality) leading to Comey's wildly inappropriate exoneration of Hillary Clinton shortly thereafter.

Just let me say this, were I one of Trump's lawyers working on the current SCOTUS petition, finding out about this phone call would result in a face palm for me.
policywonk98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Just because Democrat operatives inside and outside the government have decided to twist our system of justice into a pretzel using lawfare as a weapon against a political opponent, it doesn't mean the victims of their lawfare have to operate within their political enemy's twisted pretzel.

I hope this information helps you rest easy tonight.
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

It's literally not an ex parte communication if they didn't discuss any pending or impending matter


This!!!

It's nothing like former President Clinton meeting Lynch. Not even in the same universe!

I'm Gipper
knoxtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
the most cool guy said:

aggiehawg said:

HoustonAg9999 said:

sorry what the outrage here supposed to be? SC judge can't talk to anyone in DC that's in politics? Do they not socialize at all?
More about Trump having a pending petition before SCOTUS at the moment regarding staying Merchan's planned sentencing tomorrow. Granted, that petition is directed to Sotomayor as the AJ having supervisory authotrity over the Second Circuit but court watchers expect her to bring in the rest of the Court.

Same as an ex parte communication. That is the issue here, at least for me.

It's literally not an ex parte communication if they didn't discuss any pending or impending matters.


And which State bar are you a member of again?

So you are saying you can just do whatever if you just say... "Well we didn't discuss that"

Any first year law student knows you do not do this and he did TWO ex partes. First he called when litigation is pending, second he asked for a advisory opinion from a decision maker.

It is absolutely an ex parte when you speak to a judge away from opposing counsel. The ONLY thing allowed is an exchange of pleasantries. You don't get to just say... "well we didn't discuss that."
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

second he asked for a advisory opinion from a decision maker.
Wait, what? When was this?

I'm Gipper
mslags97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Kvetch said:

Now do the calls between the prosecutors on these cases and the Biden admin…

What is the point of you always posting these faux gotcha topic? You some ActBlue AI?


He is who it appears he is (the poster).

The other day I heard an actual conversation where the idiot lib said Trump is going to outlaw women in the military. Fear mongering from the left isn't going to stop. They don't care about truth.
knoxtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Im Gipper said:

Quote:

second he asked for a advisory opinion from a decision maker.
Wait, what? When was this?


Alito said Trump called to ask for Alito's opinion on Trump's ability to hold public office. That is an advisory opinion and Alito should not have discussed it.

John Jay and George Washington were the first to go against Advisory Opinions back in the 1700s. Jay said offering AO's effectively has the SCt affecting policy.


It is not the Court's job to give legal advise to the exec branch. That causes a blurring of the separation of powers. Unfortunately the last 20-30 years has seen the Judiciary become a subserviant branch of the Exec, so it is all kinda moot anyway, but America was built on the Judiciary being separate from the Exec.
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Alito said Trump called to ask for Alito's opinion on Trump's ability to hold public office
What is your source on this?

(I do not see it in the story linked in the OP)

I'm Gipper
akm91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My understanding is that Trump called as Alito was listed as reference to one of his former clerks seeking employment in Trump admin.

Still, not sure why Trump would make that reference call as there are people that are paid to do that.
"And liberals, being liberals, will double down on failure." - dedgod
Cobra39
How long do you want to ignore this user?
agaberto said:


Tarmac meetings are OK
This is the one.

Just checkin in to say hi.

Cobra39
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

a Justice should not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other communications concerning a pending or impending matter that are made outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers. If a Justice receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing on the substance of the matter, the Justice should promptly notify the parties of the subject matter of the communication and allow the parties to respond.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf

I'm just a lowly member of the State Bar of Texas, but I can read. The SCOTUS Code of Conduct specifically says the communication cannot be concerning a pending or impending matter, which it was not!

I'm Gipper
91AggieLawyer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

It's literally not an ex parte communication if they didn't discuss any pending or impending matters.
What they discussed is not the issue here. It is the appearance of impropriety not the substance.

I am just being consistent here. I strongly objected to Bill and Loretta's tango on the tarmac under the circumstances at that time. Even Loretta had to recuse herself (officially but not in reality) leading to Comey's wildly inappropriate exoneration of Hillary Clinton shortly thereafter.

Just let me say this, were I one of Trump's lawyers working on the current SCOTUS petition, finding out about this phone call would result in a face palm for me.

I'm more concerned about the appearance of a banana republic in going after political opponents once you have the political means.

Look, I appreciate your consistency and ordinarily, I'd agree. But when they take the gloves off, you can't leave your's on.
the most cool guy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
knoxtom said:

the most cool guy said:

aggiehawg said:

HoustonAg9999 said:

sorry what the outrage here supposed to be? SC judge can't talk to anyone in DC that's in politics? Do they not socialize at all?
More about Trump having a pending petition before SCOTUS at the moment regarding staying Merchan's planned sentencing tomorrow. Granted, that petition is directed to Sotomayor as the AJ having supervisory authotrity over the Second Circuit but court watchers expect her to bring in the rest of the Court.

Same as an ex parte communication. That is the issue here, at least for me.

It's literally not an ex parte communication if they didn't discuss any pending or impending matters.


And which State bar are you a member of again?

So you are saying you can just do whatever if you just say... "Well we didn't discuss that"

Any first year law student knows you do not do this and he did TWO ex partes. First he called when litigation is pending, second he asked for a advisory opinion from a decision maker.

It is absolutely an ex parte when you speak to a judge away from opposing counsel. The ONLY thing allowed is an exchange of pleasantries. You don't get to just say... "well we didn't discuss that."

Your naivety is adorable. To answer your question, I am a member of the State Bar of Texas and a very experienced trial lawyer and appellate lawyer. What any first year law student doesn't understand is that the legal community is very small, and we see judges and justices at fundraisers, luncheons, CLEs, and other social and professional events all the time, like weekly. I am also personal friends with judges I have cases pending in front of, as are countless other lawyers.

No, you cannot "do whatever" and just say "we didn't discuss that" if "doing whatever" involves improper ex parte communications. But what you can do is conduct yourself in conformity with the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, refrain from discussing anything that pertains to a pending matter (Texas did away with the "impending" language from the model rules), and THEN you can say "we didn't discuss that." And your response might be "but then you're just on the honor system; you and the judge could ex parte and then lie about it." Yep. Welcome to the practice of law, bud. Most of what we do is on the honor system.

The fact that you think judges/justices and attorneys in their courts cannot/do not talk other than to exchange pleasantries confirms to me that you basically never operate in a courtroom setting (if you're even a lawyer). That is completely and utterly false.
jrdaustin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
knoxtom said:

Kvetch said:

Now do the calls between the prosecutors on these cases and the Biden admin…

What is the point of you always posting these faux gotcha topic? You some ActBlue AI?


Prosecutors can talk to the president. He is their boss.

Trump should not be talking to a Justice when he has matters pending. He also should not have asked about his qualifications to serve. Both conversations are unethical.
As I read the article, Trump was asking about the qualifications of William Levi, a former clerk of Alito's, who is being considered for an executive branch position.

Alito was acting as a reference for his former clerk. Absolutely nothing unethical about that, unless you're seeing something that I am not.

Now I get that people - especially OP - think that every word out of Trump's mouth is a lie, but this explanation comes from a written statement from Justice Alito explaining the call.

So we're now calling Supreme Court Justices outright liars? Because that's what you're doing, OP.
jrdaustin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
knoxtom said:

Im Gipper said:

Quote:

second he asked for a advisory opinion from a decision maker.
Wait, what? When was this?


Alito said Trump called to ask for Alito's opinion on Trump's ability to hold public office. That is an advisory opinion and Alito should not have discussed it.

John Jay and George Washington were the first to go against Advisory Opinions back in the 1700s. Jay said offering AO's effectively has the SCt affecting policy.


It is not the Court's job to give legal advise to the exec branch. That causes a blurring of the separation of powers. Unfortunately the last 20-30 years has seen the Judiciary become a subserviant branch of the Exec, so it is all kinda moot anyway, but America was built on the Judiciary being separate from the Exec.
Read Alito's explanation again. You're way off base here.
usmcbrooks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
rgvag11 said:

They did not discuss the emergency application.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5075562-alito-confirms-call-with-trump-says-emergency-order-not-discussed/amp/
He was just getting some friendly advice from his friends on the court. Nothing to see here.
Who knew Kamala TexAg'ed? Who wrote that for you by the way?
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Im Gipper said:

Quote:

Alito said Trump called to ask for Alito's opinion on Trump's ability to hold public office
What is your source on this?

(I do not see it in the story linked in the OP)


Got that source yet?

I'm Gipper
the most cool guy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Im Gipper said:

Im Gipper said:

Quote:

Alito said Trump called to ask for Alito's opinion on Trump's ability to hold public office
What is your source on this?

(I do not see it in the story linked in the OP)


Got that source yet?

I'd just let it go. We don't need to a link to a picture of his butt hole.
Azeew
How long do you want to ignore this user?
rgvag11 said:

They did not discuss the emergency application.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5075562-alito-confirms-call-with-trump-says-emergency-order-not-discussed/amp/
He was just getting some friendly advice from his friends on the court. Nothing to see here.


Clearly, the VAG in his name is on point
2000AgPhD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Please don't feed the trolls...
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.