General Discussion

FarPoint

(12,486 posts) Sat Apr 27, 2024, 11:37 AM Apr 27

Another thought....Did tRumps attorney Sauers meet with any SC Justices before the hearing?

I just felt that maybe Sauers already knew the questions like from Alito....not sure about the other repug justices ....maybe the tRump appoitment ones too???? Likr they already had their mind made up...

Now...is that private meeting permitted???? I don't know....

If it is not permitted...oh myyyyy....

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Another thought....Did tRumps attorney Sauers meet with any SC Justices before the hearing? (Original Post) FarPoint Apr 27 OP

Nothing is beyond them. They are on a MOMFUDSKI Apr 27 #1

Any support for that accusation? TexasDem69 Apr 27 #2

it was a question, not a accusation, duh Shellback Squid Apr 27 #5

Would it matter? Would it be unethical by the courts own standards? getagrip_already Apr 27 #6

Just my observation during the arguments... FarPoint Apr 27 #7

Understood TexasDem69 Apr 27 #9

I've worked on a few SCOTUS arguments and well prepped counsel rarely are surprised by the questions they get onenote Apr 27 #11

Ohhhh Thank You.... FarPoint Apr 27 #12

Wouldn't be surprised moondust Apr 27 #3

They could have met on Fifth Avenue. It doesn't matter. Their attitude is "So What?" dalton99a Apr 27 #4

They aren't listening to make a ruling Marthe48 Apr 27 #8

I can see it DoBW Apr 27 #10

Absent ANY evidence that it happened, there's no point evaluating the significance of it happening. brooklynite Apr 27 #13

One can process a concern... FarPoint Apr 27 #14

MOMFUDSKI

(5,811 posts)

1. Nothing is beyond them. They are on a

Reply to FarPoint (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2024, 12:04 PM

Apr 27

50-year crusade.

TexasDem69

(1,899 posts)

2. Any support for that accusation?

Reply to FarPoint (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2024, 12:06 PM

Apr 27

Any at all?

Shellback Squid

(8,938 posts)

5. it was a question, not a accusation, duh

Reply to TexasDem69 (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 27, 2024, 12:27 PM

Apr 27

getagrip_already

(14,976 posts)

6. Would it matter? Would it be unethical by the courts own standards?

Reply to TexasDem69 (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 27, 2024, 12:58 PM

Apr 27

Just asking, because I'm sure there is no ethical barrier to private conversations between a justice and an attorney about to argue before the court.

I'm not saying it's right or even ethical mind you, just saying that under this court, I'm not sure it would be considered a problem.

So it's not so much an accusation ss a question.

FarPoint

(12,486 posts)

7. Just my observation during the arguments...

Reply to TexasDem69 (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 27, 2024, 12:59 PM

Apr 27

N/t

TexasDem69

(1,899 posts)

9. Understood

Reply to FarPoint (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 27, 2024, 02:05 PM

Apr 27

I would say that any well-prepared attorney will be able to predict a lot of the questions they are going to receive.

The Supreme Court’s Code of Consuct bans ex parte communications though.

Except as provided by law or Court rule, 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 parties or their lawyers.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf

onenote

(42,840 posts)

11. I've worked on a few SCOTUS arguments and well prepped counsel rarely are surprised by the questions they get

Reply to FarPoint (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 27, 2024, 04:14 PM

Apr 27

Preparation includes a “moot” court session where veteran Supreme Court attorneys, typically including former Supreme Court clerks, fire questions at the attorney who will be arguing the case. Those questions reflect the experience gleaned by those experts regarding the approach that the various Justices take in their questioning. You’ll notice that Michael Dreeben seemed ready for the questions he was asked by the justices. ( FWIW, Dreeben and I worked at the same firm early in our careers. )

FarPoint

(12,486 posts)

12. Ohhhh Thank You....

Reply to onenote (Reply #11)

Sat Apr 27, 2024, 04:40 PM

Apr 27

You add such clarity....

Michael Dreeben was excellent .....

moondust

(20,027 posts)

3. Wouldn't be surprised

Reply to FarPoint (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2024, 12:17 PM

Apr 27

to learn the defense attorneys, Federalist Society, Leonard Leo, etc., met with the RW justices well in advance to plot a strategy.

dalton99a

(81,708 posts)

4. They could have met on Fifth Avenue. It doesn't matter. Their attitude is "So What?"

Reply to FarPoint (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2024, 12:25 PM

Apr 27

There is zero accountability and zero consequences for them, and they know it

Marthe48

(17,125 posts)

8. They aren't listening to make a ruling

Reply to FarPoint (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2024, 01:06 PM

Apr 27

They are waiting for x amount of time to pass. When the lawyers on both sides stop talking, the fascist 6 will pretend to deliberate. Then they will recite what they planned to recite when they legitimized this outrage.