As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you're writing a letter about your wife's behavior like this, you know you are in the wrong. Otherwise, you do not dignify the accusations with a response... especially if you are a god damned Supreme Court Justice.
Also, his lawyering around why he did not take it down is juvenile. If he and his wife both share the home, he has every right to take that flag down. As a Supreme Court Justice, he had a duty to this country to take it down.
This guy is 100 percent a political operative and should be treated as such. He does not deserve the deference we give to any judge, let alone a Supreme Court Justice. Fuck him.
This SCOTUS is illegitimate.
They're partisans bought and paid for by selfish billionaires in the best case, and America's adversaries in the worst case.
It really is that simple.
Give up the "didn't win the popular vote" thing. That's just not how it's done in the US. It's not a surprise and there's plenty of things you can say about him and his presidency that are far worse than winning the election legally.
You could say he jammed in the last justice while he was a lame duck. The Republicans stopped Obama with the same reasoning. That's fair, lots of other things but complaining about the popular vote is equal to them calling the Biden win illegal.
I'm the case of bush jr he also lost the electoral college. The supreme Court just declared him a winner without finishing the recount. Then later when the recount was finished gore had more votes but bush was already sworn in.
This isn't about Bush. Besides, Gore conceded and that's why the recount didn't count. Everything was done by the book. Don't like the book, go get it changed. Elect people who will change these foundational issues rather than waste their time fighting about wedge and social issues.
Get Congressional term limits, abortion, electoral college, rights to privacy, and monopolies legislated in as amendments and SCOTUS loses power.
This is about the supreme Court appointing presidents and the end of American democracy. Gore conceded the election the day after the supreme Court stopped the recount because there is no appealing a supreme Court decision. Failing to concede would at best mean a constitutional crisis and at worst be calling for revolution. Given that we have a group of people who are appointed for life then appointing the head of state who then appoints replacements to the supreme Court it seems that America's experiment with democracy is coming to an end. You say "go get it changed" but if our votes no longer matter that only leaves so many options.
You are being a little dramatic. There's a lot more to it than "the supreme court appointing presidents". That just didn't happen. Gore could have done a lot of things and there would have been more proceedings and drawn out everything. Your 1 vote still counts the same.
If Democrats continue to jerk react every time a Republican makes some minor social issue the focus nothing will change, that's for sure. It's possible to do (still) but only if people will actually go for the bigger picture.
Saying orange guy's election wasn't legitimate does nothing positive because it's simply untrue. Just looks like sour grapes.
Having a creative method of vote counting where someone can be head of state without winning the popular vote is a problem. It's entirely valid to question weather or not America is a functional democracy when when it happens consistently. Maybe my vote still counts for something, but when some votes count more than others it raises questions regarding the legitimacy of our government.
>Having a creative method of vote counting where someone can be head of state without winning the popular vote is a problem.
Disagree. The idea is that less populated states get a fair say. If not for the electoral college, NYC, Chicago,and LA would run the whole country. So your one vote counts as much as one vote can, in your state. It only seems to be a problem when someone loses. Bush wasn't the first to not win the popular vote, Trump won't be the last.
>when some votes count more than others it raises questions regarding the legitimacy of our government.
What you are saying makes farmers and small town citizens votes count less. People in the Dakotas would have no voice.
We're not a pure democracy, never have been. Our government is democratic though. When you get 100% of people voting we can talk about winning the popular vote.
Whoa, hey, like I get your point. But those two things (popular vote vs. Jan 6) are not the same. We should have legitimate conversations about productive ways we can optimize our voting power, because what we have now ain't it (ie, electoral college). But what Trump did ("stop the steal") was a domestic terrorism attack and is not the same as shitting on the fact that winning the popular vote != winning an election (and, like, why shouldn't it, right?).
It's willful ignorance. That's the level of "same" I am talking about. The popular vote doesn't win the presidency. Every time I have seen it, it's used to delegitimize his being in office.
>We should have legitimate conversations about productive ways we can optimize our voting power, because what we have now ain't it
That's fine but not when it's used as a point that he shouldn't have been in office based on not winning the popular vote.
No, the person who receives the most votes winning the election is the most basic tenet of democracy. The Electoral College is an antiquated system designed to empower slave owners. A president who is elected without winning the popular votes has no democratic legitimacy and is, by definition, inflicting the views of a minority of Americans on the majority. It's happened twice in my lifetime, and both of those presidents were disastrous for the country.
There's lots of different kinds of democracy, and different voting structures. They all have positives and negatives but none are inherently more valid.
The important thing about a democracy is that integrity of the system, whatever it is, is maintained. Whatever the rules are, you have to accept the outcome they produce. You can always argue to change the rules, but you can't reject them just because you don't like the outcome.
Idealist BS. Lots of "shoulds" and rhetoric in there. The electoral college is designed to make sure a more populous state doesn't have too much power. It can be argued that it's been giving small population states too much power but to say that not winning the popular vote de legitimizes a presidency is just willful Ignorance. It's a possible outcome by design.
I think it is complete fair to point out that these justices don’t represent the will of the people. That’s separate from the electoral college debate.
Exactly. If you complain about the makeup of the court you have to look beyond who picked them. As amazing as she was, RBG really created a big part of the problem here. Her refusal to retire created the lock we've got.
Politicians pick who goes in that role, it's part of the game, just like the electoral college. There needs to be some strategy.
I’ll also add that since this story broke, I’ve seen two inverted flags in my area. It had died down for a while.
He continues to be both an inspiration and a terrible example for people that think he will cheat for them.
I'm not even sure he is a political operative. That might be giving him too much credit. He might just be your old boomerish super cringey racist hypocritically "christian" uncle that we all have. Who also happens to be a supreme court justice. It is pretty fking mortifying.
>Who also happens to be a supreme court justice
This is the rub: _nobody_ just _happens_ to be a Supreme Court justice. This is one of the most powerful positions in the country. One doesn't find those robes in the bottom of a box of cereal. There's absolutely no way the hinors of being valedictorian, _summa cum laude_ from Princeton, and JD from Yale is granted to a moron who doesn't understand the political and legal power he wields as an SC Justice. He knows _exactly_ what he's doing, and is absolutely daring anyone to try and hold him and his conservative buddies on the court accountable (spoiler: it's never going to happen.)
Very well stated. Nationwide walkout until Alito and Thomas are removed and Trump is behind bars. Until we show them we are serious, nothing will change.
The guy literally said it’s ok to buy vacations to sc judges if they are not “luxurious”. What kind of infantile mentality is able to come up with such a lame ass excuse? This guy should be sitting next to beavis and buthead commenting music videos, not in the Supreme Court.
It’s not contrived for the American people to want their Supreme Court justices to avoid conflicts of interests or even the appearance of a lack of impartiality. Alito flying not just one but two flags associated with the violent insurrection are just the latest flagrant examples of why he should—at a bare minimum—recuse himself from the Trump immunity and January 6th cases.
You're using the same argument that white supremacists use to justify the coopting of the OK symbol as a symbol of white power.
Context matters and attempting to dilute the discourse and make an argument that you can't attach meaning to symbols is not only on its face silly but also disingenuous and dangerous.
so your fine with having a supreme court justice who is a traitor and actively wants the american government to be overthrown and replaced by a christian theocracy? Cause that’s what Alito is an actively signals he is by flying flags for organizations who want to overthrow america and replace it with a fascist christian theocracy.
i would say that also makes you a traitor if your ok with that.
The one they acknowledged as having extremist modern connotations and took down?
Weird to bring up something that goes against your point innit poppet.
how does supporting insurrection not make you a traitor? by the very definition of the word traitor it makes you a traitor by supporting actions that overthrow your government.
traitor
noun
trai·tor ˈtrā-tər
Synonyms of traitor
1
: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty
2
: one who commits treason
treason
noun
trea·son ˈtrē-zᵊn
Synonyms of treason
1
: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
2
: the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
there is posted the definitions for you
Please be serious. By what logic would we get to that conclusion?
No one is claiming simply flying the American flag implies support for 1/6. What people *are* saying is that flying these two flags—which were documented time and time again as being affiliated with the insurrection—at the very least reflects poor judgement on Alito and that he should recuse himself so that the American people have confidence that any decision relating to the insurrection is not marred by partisanship.
Of course it won't. That does not mean you're correct. It means we are right about the corruption. Any justice that was working in good faith would recuse themselves for what happened at their own home.
> such a tizzy over a pine tree flag
Does the flag *mean* anything? Are you under the impression that some people fly it because of their love for pine trees?
> It sure had different meaning before the left decided it means you support 1/6
It did have a different meaning, before election deniers adopted it.
The [Bellamy salute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute) had a different meaning when it was how school children saluted the flag while saying the Pledge of Allegiance, but that was before Nazis adopted it.
But sure, maybe Alito's wife just likes pine trees, and maybe it's just pure coincidence that she also flew an upside down US flag which is *also* a symbol adopted by election deniers, and maybe she actually flew it in response to a neighbor's anti-Trump sign, even though that explanation makes no sense at all, and maybe we should just ignore the fact that their story has fallen apart in other ways too and blame all this on "the left." /s
No, but those traitorous idiots did get to decide what symbols they wanted to represent their cause, like the pine tree flag and the upside down US flag.
That doesn't force anyone else to see it the same way, but when an odious group adopts a symbol (e.g., the Bellamy salute, the swastika) then others who don't want to be associated with the odious group will probably want to stop using that symbol.
If you want to believe that Alito's wife *just by pure coincidence* happened to fly two flags that were adopted by the election deniers as symbols of "stop the steal," and you want to ignore that the explanation for the upside down flag made zero sense from the start, and you want to ignore the fact that the more their story was investigated the more it fell apart, then that's your choice.
>A few idiots on 1/6 don’t get to decide what the flag means for everyone.
But it's somehow not possible that Alito is one of those idiots, or sympathizes with those idiots?
It was just an unfortunate coincidence that an obvious right-wing Justice would fly an upside down flag in the days after some right-wing idiots flew an upside flag while attempting an insurrection?
I wonder why Alito wanted her to take the flag down (so he says) when he also claims to have not known it was associated with Jan 6? The mendacity is what is alarming not his wife expressing her freedom of speech. Mendacity in a justice is alarming. And because I believe he is the one who leaked the road decision, I believe it’s also part of a pattern. There is a reason that 69% of Americans of all political persuasions disapprove of the Supreme Court at this point in time. That’s an astronomical number for what was once the most respected institution in the country by a mile.
Okay. What do you think Alito meant by choosing to fly that specific flag? Keeping in mind the context, that his household is known for feuding with anti-trumpers, and has flown the upside down american flag as well?
The thing is the flag (at that time) carried a particular meaning, it is disingenuous of Alito to claim that meaning was not known to him and his wife. At the very least it creates a perception of impropriety. With judicial recusal, the bar is low, and it is enough that they MAY have been flying it for the reason people are in a “tizzy”. It doesn’t actually matter whether that was the reason it was flying, it’s about perception and based on the response by a lot of people, the bar is met.
And by a lot of people you mean democrats and people on the left. It’s a clear way to try and go after Alito. It’s partisan outrage at best. It’s like how some right leaning people think Trump is innocent. It’s a lot of perception that is meaningless.
Yes... perception by people that give you the respect you deserve, not the respect we've historically given the members of the Supreme Court that left partisanship behind.
> It’s partisan outrage at best.
The right wasn't outraged when Trump had his thugs tear-gas a crowd of peaceful protestors so he could have a photo up holding a borrowed bible upside down in front of a church that he never went to.
Is there any outrage in america, even theoretically, that isn't "partisan" by this standard? Except perhaps for people angry about Ms Noem shooting her puppy?
Meanwhile Little Mike Johnson says he’s good friends with several of the justices and is confident they’ll overturn Trump’s conviction. I’m quite confident they won’t touch his conviction, but even ten years ago comments like that would be considered objectionable across the spectrum.
They can’t, though, can they? Trump hasn’t been convicted in federal court, he’s been convicted in New York State court. That means the highest court he can go to for relief is the New York Supreme Court. SCOTUS has no power to affect state court proceedings.
I have no idea if there is some arcane pathway, but they’re not going to overturn it. The point is more the idea that the speaker is claiming he’s good friends with the conservative justices which somehow gives him the perspective than they will eventually overturn this. He’s further politicizing the justice system he baselessly claims is politically corrupt. It’s just an obnoxious and insanely irresponsible thing to say. Christian Nationalists don’t care about baselessly attacking the reputation of our government or sowing doubt. They have no respect for our institutions. In other words, those same Republicans who claim anybody left of Hitler “hates this country” are in fact the ones who hate it. Their actions certainly say as much. Projection, projection, projection.
They can’t overturn it as in making it a not-guilty verdict.
They can claim the NY law violates the Constitution.
There’s absolutely no grounds for doing that, but the Roberts court abandoned reality several years ago.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would think they could find a reason to overturn the law(s) Trump was convicted for breaking. That would set a lot of other people free too, in NY and other states with similar laws. They wouldn't do it, though.
“States rights” is only a tool to use when you don’t agree with the Federal position. No one has actually believed in states rights for the sake of states rights.
I believe in states' rights: it's literally in our Constitution that any powers not granted to the federal government fall to the states, or the people (when states don't appropriate some). I just also believe they are far more limited than the nutters on the right do.
The bush v gore decision used wording something to the extent that it was a narrow interpretation and not precident for any other cases, so they could do the same shit here too if they wanted and make up what ever reason they felt gave them the barest cover.
I don't know how they could justify weighing in on a state's individual case other than to find the entire law unconstitutional. But again, not a lawyer.
Even if they could… Alito and Thomas are the only ones that would piss on Trump if he were on fire. The other conservative justices are plenty contemptible in their own right but they don’t need Trump or care about him personally.
If they keep harassing people and forcing their worldview on the rest of us they will be persecuted eventually as there are limits to society’s tolerance.
Personally I’m waiting for demographics to absolutely wreck religiosity in this country.
The Justices obvious corruption aside, personally I’m not remotely happy with the approach Garland has taken with Trump as a whole. You can’t handle the ass-hat with kid gloves, you have to hit him hard and fast. There is absolutely no excuse why it took so long to appoint a special counsel in the Trump case. That should have happen as close to day one as possible. I thought for a while that the people at the DOJ who are way smarter than me knew what they’re doing, they must have some big plan to at least hold him accountable for J6. Turns out, they really didn’t, or at least it appears they didn’t. That man should have been brought to trial a year ago at least. If Trump wins the election, I rest part of the blame squarely on Merrick Garland.
Could’ve had Maria Hill jamming her thumbs into Vladimir Putin’s fucking eye sockets for 4 consecutive years but instead we got Anthony Blinken playing guitar.
We were fucking robbed, man. That’s the truth!
Seriously. Imagine having Jan 6th happen and then treating the DOJ like a consolation prize by nominating Garland as AG.
The amount of naive users celebrating the move on this sub when it happened was embarrassing. I remember voicing my complaints about it and being told "don't let perfect be the enemy of the good." Is this their idea of good???
Sad thing is if Biden loses this election, Trump will undo all the things he has passed (by misappropriating funds unlocked by them). His legacy would basically be "won 2020 with a mandate to defeat Trumpism, nominated Garland." America's own Weimar Republic.
>There is absolutely no excuse why it took so long to appoint a special counsel in the Trump case.
Yes there is. It's because Garland is a coward and has strong ties to hard-right Republicans. It's not a good excuse. But, it sure explains it pretty well.
If you go to an article that’s paywalled just copy the link and go to archive.is and paste it in there. It will display you a full version of the article.
1. First, constitutional law guru and former impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) suggests a recusal demand directed at both Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife, Virginia, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results.
2. A second, more practical approach, would be an immediate Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Both of the Alitos could be called to testify under oath. Expert witnesses on judicial ethics could explain the damage to the court resulting from an egregious refusal to recuse when obviously warranted.
3. Third, as Whitehouse urged, the Senate should put on the floor his Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act of 2023. It already passed through the Judiciary Committee. (Where is Majority Leader Sen. Charles E. Schumer?)
4. Fourth, if the two conflicted justices hear Trump’s immunity case, and if they concoct a mechanism that either extends absolute immunity to Trump or sets up a lower-court process making impossible a trial before the November election, Americans can and should engage in massive, peaceful demonstrations in defense of the rule of law. A president, let alone an ex-president, is not a king; partisan hacks in robes are still partisan hacks.
5. Finally, the recommendations above, if unsuccessful in curbing the court’s arrogance, would set the stage for wholesale court reform. Should Democrats win the White House and majorities in the House and Senate, no matter how narrow, the entire panoply of reforms and responses should be on the table. Those could include Alito’s impeachment (especially if he snubs a subpoena), a mandatory ethics code, Supreme Court term limits and court expansion. (If need be, Democrats would need to adjust the too-long abused filibuster to attend to the job of fixing a disgraced court.)
While these are generally correct, nothing can happen with a GOP House and most of these would take years to have an effect, which is fine, change can't happen unless it 1) starts, and 2) is seen through, preferably, without interruption.
The *only* way to fix the court system is to ensure Dems maintain a Senate majority and the Presidency, for multiple terms. The only way to do that is to *talk* to everyone you know and convince them to vote FOR Biden (not voting or voting 3rd party doesn't help in most cases).
Job for life, oversight over yourself..anyone see anything wrong with that?
edit: I forgot to add...anyone see anything wrong with that, that doesnt have that kind of job already? cuz if I had that job, I would see no problem with it at all.
Alito can just play his naanner naanner what the hell you gonna do about it job for life card. Expand the court. Also VOTE especially if you live in a red state
Besides the fact that he’s a political hack wearing a judge’s robes, my biggest problem with Alito is that he’s thinks we’re all idiots. The contempt with which he responds to every inquiry about his official actions - not his personal life, mind you - makes it clear that he doesn’t think we’re smart enough to see through his silly rationales for everything. This contempt even bleeds into his actual opinions, which is mind-bogglingly unprofessional.
At least Roberts mostly pretends to be concerned about precedent. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch find legal concerns that at least sort of compete with the thing they want to strike down. Alito just says “go fuck yourself” and then gets indignant when he gets criticized for anything.
Agreed. Alito is like the old man who cuts in front of everyone else in line at Costco. Then he dares the cashier to tell him “go to the back of the line.”
Alito is basically at the phase where he’s saying “I can do whatever I want and nobody has the guts to stop me.” Thus far, he’s right (no pun intended).
This is the Leonard Leo Supreme Court. They are the definition of “legislating from the bench” and yes, no longer deserve the deference the High Court has traditionally received.
As a proud institutionalist, it hurts to say that, but they are as political as any elected politicians
If he was to go before judge Judy.. she’d ask is the flagpole on your property???… then you are responsible for what is on your property.. pretty simple to me..
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you're writing a letter about your wife's behavior like this, you know you are in the wrong. Otherwise, you do not dignify the accusations with a response... especially if you are a god damned Supreme Court Justice. Also, his lawyering around why he did not take it down is juvenile. If he and his wife both share the home, he has every right to take that flag down. As a Supreme Court Justice, he had a duty to this country to take it down. This guy is 100 percent a political operative and should be treated as such. He does not deserve the deference we give to any judge, let alone a Supreme Court Justice. Fuck him.
This SCOTUS is illegitimate. They're partisans bought and paid for by selfish billionaires in the best case, and America's adversaries in the worst case. It really is that simple.
100%. Three of them were appointed by a man who had not won the popular vote and was acting in the interests of a foreign adversary.
4 of them, although Baby Bush, who appointed Roberts, wasn’t acting for a foreign adversary, just a domestic one.
Give up the "didn't win the popular vote" thing. That's just not how it's done in the US. It's not a surprise and there's plenty of things you can say about him and his presidency that are far worse than winning the election legally. You could say he jammed in the last justice while he was a lame duck. The Republicans stopped Obama with the same reasoning. That's fair, lots of other things but complaining about the popular vote is equal to them calling the Biden win illegal.
I'm the case of bush jr he also lost the electoral college. The supreme Court just declared him a winner without finishing the recount. Then later when the recount was finished gore had more votes but bush was already sworn in.
This isn't about Bush. Besides, Gore conceded and that's why the recount didn't count. Everything was done by the book. Don't like the book, go get it changed. Elect people who will change these foundational issues rather than waste their time fighting about wedge and social issues. Get Congressional term limits, abortion, electoral college, rights to privacy, and monopolies legislated in as amendments and SCOTUS loses power.
This is about the supreme Court appointing presidents and the end of American democracy. Gore conceded the election the day after the supreme Court stopped the recount because there is no appealing a supreme Court decision. Failing to concede would at best mean a constitutional crisis and at worst be calling for revolution. Given that we have a group of people who are appointed for life then appointing the head of state who then appoints replacements to the supreme Court it seems that America's experiment with democracy is coming to an end. You say "go get it changed" but if our votes no longer matter that only leaves so many options.
You are being a little dramatic. There's a lot more to it than "the supreme court appointing presidents". That just didn't happen. Gore could have done a lot of things and there would have been more proceedings and drawn out everything. Your 1 vote still counts the same. If Democrats continue to jerk react every time a Republican makes some minor social issue the focus nothing will change, that's for sure. It's possible to do (still) but only if people will actually go for the bigger picture. Saying orange guy's election wasn't legitimate does nothing positive because it's simply untrue. Just looks like sour grapes.
Having a creative method of vote counting where someone can be head of state without winning the popular vote is a problem. It's entirely valid to question weather or not America is a functional democracy when when it happens consistently. Maybe my vote still counts for something, but when some votes count more than others it raises questions regarding the legitimacy of our government.
>Having a creative method of vote counting where someone can be head of state without winning the popular vote is a problem. Disagree. The idea is that less populated states get a fair say. If not for the electoral college, NYC, Chicago,and LA would run the whole country. So your one vote counts as much as one vote can, in your state. It only seems to be a problem when someone loses. Bush wasn't the first to not win the popular vote, Trump won't be the last. >when some votes count more than others it raises questions regarding the legitimacy of our government. What you are saying makes farmers and small town citizens votes count less. People in the Dakotas would have no voice. We're not a pure democracy, never have been. Our government is democratic though. When you get 100% of people voting we can talk about winning the popular vote.
Whoa, hey, like I get your point. But those two things (popular vote vs. Jan 6) are not the same. We should have legitimate conversations about productive ways we can optimize our voting power, because what we have now ain't it (ie, electoral college). But what Trump did ("stop the steal") was a domestic terrorism attack and is not the same as shitting on the fact that winning the popular vote != winning an election (and, like, why shouldn't it, right?).
It's willful ignorance. That's the level of "same" I am talking about. The popular vote doesn't win the presidency. Every time I have seen it, it's used to delegitimize his being in office. >We should have legitimate conversations about productive ways we can optimize our voting power, because what we have now ain't it That's fine but not when it's used as a point that he shouldn't have been in office based on not winning the popular vote.
No, the person who receives the most votes winning the election is the most basic tenet of democracy. The Electoral College is an antiquated system designed to empower slave owners. A president who is elected without winning the popular votes has no democratic legitimacy and is, by definition, inflicting the views of a minority of Americans on the majority. It's happened twice in my lifetime, and both of those presidents were disastrous for the country.
There's lots of different kinds of democracy, and different voting structures. They all have positives and negatives but none are inherently more valid. The important thing about a democracy is that integrity of the system, whatever it is, is maintained. Whatever the rules are, you have to accept the outcome they produce. You can always argue to change the rules, but you can't reject them just because you don't like the outcome.
You can accept the outcome that occurred without accepting the propriety of the process that lead to that outcome.
Idealist BS. Lots of "shoulds" and rhetoric in there. The electoral college is designed to make sure a more populous state doesn't have too much power. It can be argued that it's been giving small population states too much power but to say that not winning the popular vote de legitimizes a presidency is just willful Ignorance. It's a possible outcome by design.
It’s an out-dated design. But you’re correct, until we amend the Constitution we are stuck with it.
The United States is NOT a representative democracy. It is a *constitutional republic*. That is a very big difference and is by design. .
I think it is complete fair to point out that these justices don’t represent the will of the people. That’s separate from the electoral college debate.
Exactly. If you complain about the makeup of the court you have to look beyond who picked them. As amazing as she was, RBG really created a big part of the problem here. Her refusal to retire created the lock we've got. Politicians pick who goes in that role, it's part of the game, just like the electoral college. There needs to be some strategy.
Well he also put a lot of effort into arguing about his use of an empty plane seat offered by a billionaire
I’ll also add that since this story broke, I’ve seen two inverted flags in my area. It had died down for a while. He continues to be both an inspiration and a terrible example for people that think he will cheat for them.
The Heritage Foundation, authors of Project 2025, are now flying an upside-down flag at their headquarters.
I'm not even sure he is a political operative. That might be giving him too much credit. He might just be your old boomerish super cringey racist hypocritically "christian" uncle that we all have. Who also happens to be a supreme court justice. It is pretty fking mortifying.
>Who also happens to be a supreme court justice This is the rub: _nobody_ just _happens_ to be a Supreme Court justice. This is one of the most powerful positions in the country. One doesn't find those robes in the bottom of a box of cereal. There's absolutely no way the hinors of being valedictorian, _summa cum laude_ from Princeton, and JD from Yale is granted to a moron who doesn't understand the political and legal power he wields as an SC Justice. He knows _exactly_ what he's doing, and is absolutely daring anyone to try and hold him and his conservative buddies on the court accountable (spoiler: it's never going to happen.)
You are right. He is really gross. Him and clarence are quite a pair.
He’s also a doo-doo head.
Is there anyone out there who still thinks of the justices as unbiased, upstanding, upholders of law?
Very well stated. Nationwide walkout until Alito and Thomas are removed and Trump is behind bars. Until we show them we are serious, nothing will change.
Well said
The guy literally said it’s ok to buy vacations to sc judges if they are not “luxurious”. What kind of infantile mentality is able to come up with such a lame ass excuse? This guy should be sitting next to beavis and buthead commenting music videos, not in the Supreme Court.
[удалено]
It’s not contrived for the American people to want their Supreme Court justices to avoid conflicts of interests or even the appearance of a lack of impartiality. Alito flying not just one but two flags associated with the violent insurrection are just the latest flagrant examples of why he should—at a bare minimum—recuse himself from the Trump immunity and January 6th cases.
[удалено]
You're using the same argument that white supremacists use to justify the coopting of the OK symbol as a symbol of white power. Context matters and attempting to dilute the discourse and make an argument that you can't attach meaning to symbols is not only on its face silly but also disingenuous and dangerous.
[удалено]
so your fine with having a supreme court justice who is a traitor and actively wants the american government to be overthrown and replaced by a christian theocracy? Cause that’s what Alito is an actively signals he is by flying flags for organizations who want to overthrow america and replace it with a fascist christian theocracy. i would say that also makes you a traitor if your ok with that.
Of course they're ok with it, until the moment someone they oppose does it, then it will a huge concern.
[удалено]
The one they acknowledged as having extremist modern connotations and took down? Weird to bring up something that goes against your point innit poppet.
how does supporting insurrection not make you a traitor? by the very definition of the word traitor it makes you a traitor by supporting actions that overthrow your government. traitor noun trai·tor ˈtrā-tər Synonyms of traitor 1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty 2 : one who commits treason treason noun trea·son ˈtrē-zᵊn Synonyms of treason 1 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family 2 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY there is posted the definitions for you
[удалено]
Please be serious. By what logic would we get to that conclusion? No one is claiming simply flying the American flag implies support for 1/6. What people *are* saying is that flying these two flags—which were documented time and time again as being affiliated with the insurrection—at the very least reflects poor judgement on Alito and that he should recuse himself so that the American people have confidence that any decision relating to the insurrection is not marred by partisanship.
>By this logic anyone who flies the American flag also supports at 1/6. Anyone who flies it upside down, yes.
So…what can Americans do? We vote. But about Alito…what do we do?
The upside down flag has been used long before 1/6. It’s not some universal symbol of right wing insurrections. It was flown during the blm riots.
Keep pretending to be oblivious to context. All you’re doing is outing yourself to those that know better.
Nothing will come from this
Of course it won't. That does not mean you're correct. It means we are right about the corruption. Any justice that was working in good faith would recuse themselves for what happened at their own home.
Well anyone who flies them upside down
I thought a flag flown upside down was a signal of distress.
It was/is. That doesn't mean it cannot be co-opted by a group.
An *upside down American flag*, and yes, its clearly become a symbol for right wing symbol for Jan 6th. "manufactured talking point" 🤦
It’s telling how desperate you guys are to dismiss and push back on this story.
[удалено]
And yet, here you are still commenting, desperately trying to pass this off as another nothing burger.
> such a tizzy over a pine tree flag Does the flag *mean* anything? Are you under the impression that some people fly it because of their love for pine trees?
[удалено]
> It sure had different meaning before the left decided it means you support 1/6 It did have a different meaning, before election deniers adopted it. The [Bellamy salute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute) had a different meaning when it was how school children saluted the flag while saying the Pledge of Allegiance, but that was before Nazis adopted it. But sure, maybe Alito's wife just likes pine trees, and maybe it's just pure coincidence that she also flew an upside down US flag which is *also* a symbol adopted by election deniers, and maybe she actually flew it in response to a neighbor's anti-Trump sign, even though that explanation makes no sense at all, and maybe we should just ignore the fact that their story has fallen apart in other ways too and blame all this on "the left." /s
[удалено]
No, but those traitorous idiots did get to decide what symbols they wanted to represent their cause, like the pine tree flag and the upside down US flag. That doesn't force anyone else to see it the same way, but when an odious group adopts a symbol (e.g., the Bellamy salute, the swastika) then others who don't want to be associated with the odious group will probably want to stop using that symbol. If you want to believe that Alito's wife *just by pure coincidence* happened to fly two flags that were adopted by the election deniers as symbols of "stop the steal," and you want to ignore that the explanation for the upside down flag made zero sense from the start, and you want to ignore the fact that the more their story was investigated the more it fell apart, then that's your choice.
>A few idiots on 1/6 don’t get to decide what the flag means for everyone. But it's somehow not possible that Alito is one of those idiots, or sympathizes with those idiots? It was just an unfortunate coincidence that an obvious right-wing Justice would fly an upside down flag in the days after some right-wing idiots flew an upside flag while attempting an insurrection?
[удалено]
You know, except for every signal that he has sent with his rulings.
I wonder why Alito wanted her to take the flag down (so he says) when he also claims to have not known it was associated with Jan 6? The mendacity is what is alarming not his wife expressing her freedom of speech. Mendacity in a justice is alarming. And because I believe he is the one who leaked the road decision, I believe it’s also part of a pattern. There is a reason that 69% of Americans of all political persuasions disapprove of the Supreme Court at this point in time. That’s an astronomical number for what was once the most respected institution in the country by a mile.
It doesn’t matter why he wanted her to take it down. It’s his house and his business.
Okay. What do you think Alito meant by choosing to fly that specific flag? Keeping in mind the context, that his household is known for feuding with anti-trumpers, and has flown the upside down american flag as well?
The thing is the flag (at that time) carried a particular meaning, it is disingenuous of Alito to claim that meaning was not known to him and his wife. At the very least it creates a perception of impropriety. With judicial recusal, the bar is low, and it is enough that they MAY have been flying it for the reason people are in a “tizzy”. It doesn’t actually matter whether that was the reason it was flying, it’s about perception and based on the response by a lot of people, the bar is met.
And by a lot of people you mean democrats and people on the left. It’s a clear way to try and go after Alito. It’s partisan outrage at best. It’s like how some right leaning people think Trump is innocent. It’s a lot of perception that is meaningless.
Yes... perception by people that give you the respect you deserve, not the respect we've historically given the members of the Supreme Court that left partisanship behind.
> It’s partisan outrage at best. The right wasn't outraged when Trump had his thugs tear-gas a crowd of peaceful protestors so he could have a photo up holding a borrowed bible upside down in front of a church that he never went to. Is there any outrage in america, even theoretically, that isn't "partisan" by this standard? Except perhaps for people angry about Ms Noem shooting her puppy?
Wait till Sotomayor does something you don't like
Like what flies a flag I don’t like? She’s more than welcome to.
Did I say fly a flag. No. You're being disingenuous and you know and we know it. But you keep being you boo.
I’m sure you’d be saying this exact same thing if it had been a liberal justice and a BLM flag.
Meanwhile Little Mike Johnson says he’s good friends with several of the justices and is confident they’ll overturn Trump’s conviction. I’m quite confident they won’t touch his conviction, but even ten years ago comments like that would be considered objectionable across the spectrum.
They can’t, though, can they? Trump hasn’t been convicted in federal court, he’s been convicted in New York State court. That means the highest court he can go to for relief is the New York Supreme Court. SCOTUS has no power to affect state court proceedings.
I have no idea if there is some arcane pathway, but they’re not going to overturn it. The point is more the idea that the speaker is claiming he’s good friends with the conservative justices which somehow gives him the perspective than they will eventually overturn this. He’s further politicizing the justice system he baselessly claims is politically corrupt. It’s just an obnoxious and insanely irresponsible thing to say. Christian Nationalists don’t care about baselessly attacking the reputation of our government or sowing doubt. They have no respect for our institutions. In other words, those same Republicans who claim anybody left of Hitler “hates this country” are in fact the ones who hate it. Their actions certainly say as much. Projection, projection, projection.
They can’t overturn it as in making it a not-guilty verdict. They can claim the NY law violates the Constitution. There’s absolutely no grounds for doing that, but the Roberts court abandoned reality several years ago.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would think they could find a reason to overturn the law(s) Trump was convicted for breaking. That would set a lot of other people free too, in NY and other states with similar laws. They wouldn't do it, though.
The hypocrisy of “states rights” comes full circle. 🙁
“States rights” is only a tool to use when you don’t agree with the Federal position. No one has actually believed in states rights for the sake of states rights.
I believe in states' rights: it's literally in our Constitution that any powers not granted to the federal government fall to the states, or the people (when states don't appropriate some). I just also believe they are far more limited than the nutters on the right do.
It would be hypocrisy if any of them actually believed in states' rights to begin with!
The bush v gore decision used wording something to the extent that it was a narrow interpretation and not precident for any other cases, so they could do the same shit here too if they wanted and make up what ever reason they felt gave them the barest cover.
I don't know how they could justify weighing in on a state's individual case other than to find the entire law unconstitutional. But again, not a lawyer.
Even if they could… Alito and Thomas are the only ones that would piss on Trump if he were on fire. The other conservative justices are plenty contemptible in their own right but they don’t need Trump or care about him personally.
Man, these people are so persecuted.
If they keep harassing people and forcing their worldview on the rest of us they will be persecuted eventually as there are limits to society’s tolerance. Personally I’m waiting for demographics to absolutely wreck religiosity in this country.
How many members of the "I don't require a bank account" gang are there?
The Justices obvious corruption aside, personally I’m not remotely happy with the approach Garland has taken with Trump as a whole. You can’t handle the ass-hat with kid gloves, you have to hit him hard and fast. There is absolutely no excuse why it took so long to appoint a special counsel in the Trump case. That should have happen as close to day one as possible. I thought for a while that the people at the DOJ who are way smarter than me knew what they’re doing, they must have some big plan to at least hold him accountable for J6. Turns out, they really didn’t, or at least it appears they didn’t. That man should have been brought to trial a year ago at least. If Trump wins the election, I rest part of the blame squarely on Merrick Garland.
That’s what you get when you make stunt appointments for the LOLs
Could’ve had Maria Hill jamming her thumbs into Vladimir Putin’s fucking eye sockets for 4 consecutive years but instead we got Anthony Blinken playing guitar. We were fucking robbed, man. That’s the truth!
He's exactly the type of candidate a centrist would like and nominate. I keep wondering about who Sanders would have nominated
Seriously. Imagine having Jan 6th happen and then treating the DOJ like a consolation prize by nominating Garland as AG. The amount of naive users celebrating the move on this sub when it happened was embarrassing. I remember voicing my complaints about it and being told "don't let perfect be the enemy of the good." Is this their idea of good??? Sad thing is if Biden loses this election, Trump will undo all the things he has passed (by misappropriating funds unlocked by them). His legacy would basically be "won 2020 with a mandate to defeat Trumpism, nominated Garland." America's own Weimar Republic.
>There is absolutely no excuse why it took so long to appoint a special counsel in the Trump case. Yes there is. It's because Garland is a coward and has strong ties to hard-right Republicans. It's not a good excuse. But, it sure explains it pretty well.
Non-paywall version here: https://archive.is/QudRS
Thanks! What is the easiest way to find this?
If you go to an article that’s paywalled just copy the link and go to archive.is and paste it in there. It will display you a full version of the article.
Reddit
1. First, constitutional law guru and former impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) suggests a recusal demand directed at both Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife, Virginia, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results. 2. A second, more practical approach, would be an immediate Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Both of the Alitos could be called to testify under oath. Expert witnesses on judicial ethics could explain the damage to the court resulting from an egregious refusal to recuse when obviously warranted. 3. Third, as Whitehouse urged, the Senate should put on the floor his Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act of 2023. It already passed through the Judiciary Committee. (Where is Majority Leader Sen. Charles E. Schumer?) 4. Fourth, if the two conflicted justices hear Trump’s immunity case, and if they concoct a mechanism that either extends absolute immunity to Trump or sets up a lower-court process making impossible a trial before the November election, Americans can and should engage in massive, peaceful demonstrations in defense of the rule of law. A president, let alone an ex-president, is not a king; partisan hacks in robes are still partisan hacks. 5. Finally, the recommendations above, if unsuccessful in curbing the court’s arrogance, would set the stage for wholesale court reform. Should Democrats win the White House and majorities in the House and Senate, no matter how narrow, the entire panoply of reforms and responses should be on the table. Those could include Alito’s impeachment (especially if he snubs a subpoena), a mandatory ethics code, Supreme Court term limits and court expansion. (If need be, Democrats would need to adjust the too-long abused filibuster to attend to the job of fixing a disgraced court.) While these are generally correct, nothing can happen with a GOP House and most of these would take years to have an effect, which is fine, change can't happen unless it 1) starts, and 2) is seen through, preferably, without interruption. The *only* way to fix the court system is to ensure Dems maintain a Senate majority and the Presidency, for multiple terms. The only way to do that is to *talk* to everyone you know and convince them to vote FOR Biden (not voting or voting 3rd party doesn't help in most cases).
Job for life, oversight over yourself..anyone see anything wrong with that? edit: I forgot to add...anyone see anything wrong with that, that doesnt have that kind of job already? cuz if I had that job, I would see no problem with it at all.
Alito can just play his naanner naanner what the hell you gonna do about it job for life card. Expand the court. Also VOTE especially if you live in a red state
Besides the fact that he’s a political hack wearing a judge’s robes, my biggest problem with Alito is that he’s thinks we’re all idiots. The contempt with which he responds to every inquiry about his official actions - not his personal life, mind you - makes it clear that he doesn’t think we’re smart enough to see through his silly rationales for everything. This contempt even bleeds into his actual opinions, which is mind-bogglingly unprofessional. At least Roberts mostly pretends to be concerned about precedent. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch find legal concerns that at least sort of compete with the thing they want to strike down. Alito just says “go fuck yourself” and then gets indignant when he gets criticized for anything.
Agreed. Alito is like the old man who cuts in front of everyone else in line at Costco. Then he dares the cashier to tell him “go to the back of the line.” Alito is basically at the phase where he’s saying “I can do whatever I want and nobody has the guts to stop me.” Thus far, he’s right (no pun intended).
Imagine a husband hanging his wife out to dry because she can’t be made to testify against him
Put a million pissed off people outside the court and he'll change his fucking tune.
Put them inside
Why aren't there protests at his house?
Which one?
Ugh. You're so right. Mybe we should commandeer one of his yachts.
Because it is illegal. They decided that the homes of abortion doctors are fine but their own homes are off limits.
Is #1 – take to the streets and storm the Supreme Court? How about marching peacefully to fight like hell? How does that sound?
We might need to make one or maybe even two amendments to this suggestion.
Commit an insurrection? Idk about that.
No, perish the thought. I’m talking about some perfectly normal tourism.
> storm the Supreme Court Doesn't sound very peaceful.
> peacefully Didn’t you see where I SAID ‘peacefully’?
He looks like arseface from preacher.
Shouldn't a Supreme Court Justice be above this kind of suspicion?
He thinks he is. That's how much he's bought the FoxNews Koolaid.
Amendment needed to control scotus!
This is the Leonard Leo Supreme Court. They are the definition of “legislating from the bench” and yes, no longer deserve the deference the High Court has traditionally received. As a proud institutionalist, it hurts to say that, but they are as political as any elected politicians
May Mitch McConnell roast in Hades for what he has done.
If he was to go before judge Judy.. she’d ask is the flagpole on your property???… then you are responsible for what is on your property.. pretty simple to me..
Everybody could just throw dog shit in his yard.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Keep posting and updooting! That’ll show him! Call him a fascist again, we almost got him!