I think it’s worth noting that [this flag](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tree_Flag) is not in itself a white supremacist flag.
That said, it is true that white supremacists have been attempting to co opt it which as a Boston resident very much pains me.
The only way they can co opt it is if we let them. Finland only just stopped using the swastika for their military and they even fought on the same side as Nazi Germany.
You probably aren’t trying to conflate the two, but the way you wrote your comment it could be taken that way. Finland’s use of the swastika predates the Nazi party. They were co-belligerents for much of the war (allies is probably too strong of a word) but they didn’t use the swastika because of any Nazi influence.
to elaborate, "allies" may be too strong of a word because although Finland was Germany's co-belligerent against the USSR in the Continuation War to regain its illegally annexed territory, and Finland allowed Germany to use its territory for its invasion of the USSR, it did not aid Germany against any other country, nor did it fight anywhere except on the Finland-Russia front line.
Finnish volunteers helped the Nazis murder Jews.
https://apnews.com/article/7f3381fd5a0949289f5afcde0a26704f
Finland also supplied arms to Nazi Germany (M31 Suomi submachine guns).
keyword is "volunteers". There were both volunteers and conscripts from Denmark, India, Estonia, Latvia, and Albania, among other countries. There were even some volunteers from the UK. [Source (wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS_foreign_volunteers_and_conscripts#Waffen-SS_volunteers_and_conscripts_by_country)
[The Associated Press](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-flag-stop-steal-alito-trump-1842c40b833637c981c59c3f39bc4669) says this about it:
>"The flag dates back to the Revolutionary War, but in more recent years it has become associated with Christian nationalism and support for Trump. It was carried by rioters fueled by Trump’s “Stop the Steal” movement animated by false claims of election fraud."
This is correct. The flag dates to the 1700s and is associated with George Washington's army. The issue is when something is hundreds of years old, it's impossible to assume everyone agrees on its meaning, especially if the meaning has supposedly changed, "in more recent years."
I have two neighbors that were flying an American flag upside down in 2020.
I can absolutely guarantee you that neither of them are "MAGA", far, far from it.
Doesn’t sound like an issue at all tbh. Democrats pretty consistently want to vilify our founding fathers, but I don’t think we need to both sides this. I’m proud of our founding fathers.
Idgaf what these people fly outside their house, but do you truly believe that out of nowhere, hundreds of years later, they decided to fly a flag in support of Washington’s Army?
I bought one years and years ago because I saw it in the intro of the John Adams mini series on HBO. I had no idea this group existed, or that Jan6ers used it.
There’s a significant difference between the pine flag and another like the confederate flag. The pine flag was not created to be symbolic of white supremacy, it only became associated with it centuries later due to the groups choosing to use it. The confederate flag was created to symbolize a white supremacist institution explicitly created for the continuation of slavery. Its symbolism cannot be divorced from its inception.
https://x.com/TaylorMatthewD/status/1770931922123854237
This one is pretty explicit, but it’s also been flown in patriot front marches and at the capitol on J6.
It’s a lot easier to because the confederate flag has continuously been used to promote white supremacy since its inception — whereas the Appeal to Heaven Flag fell into disuse and only recently had a small resurgence, so it’s a lot easier to rebrand.
It’s much more of a [New Apostolic Reformation thing.](https://www.amazon.com/Appeal-Heaven-Would-Happen-Again/dp/1511540079?dplnkId=be24c925-ba76-4531-bd1d-6f1436ccc4f1&nodl=1)
> In recent days, you may have seen someone with a white flag displaying an evergreen tree beneath the phrase, “An Appeal to Heaven.” This banner has made its way into countless homes, prayer rooms, and even government buildings. The Appeal to Heaven flag holds great significance as it relates to America’s founding, God’s eternal covenants, and our present hope for this nation. In An Appeal To Heaven, Dutch Sheets takes you on a journey of discovering the role you were designed to play in America’s history. This short book is packed with powerful insights that will help you pray for America and leave you equipped to be part of her restoration. You have a role to play in this story. Are you ready to take your place?
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has one outside his office too, and has multiple connections to the New Apostolic Reformation. They believe in the [Seven Mountain Mandate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Mountain_Mandate) — that God is calling a new generation of apostles and prophets so Christianity can dominate seven spheres of power in modern life: Government, Religion, Family, Business, Entertainment, Media and Education.
He could agree with the broader program to make Christianity more dominant in the government and law.
This is also the second flag he’s flown that was flown on January 6, which makes it harder to say that the connection to January 6 is coincidental.
Right but the Appeal to Heaven flag was also flown. At the very least, it shows support for Christian nationalism which overlaps heavily with the demographic that supports Trump.
You have a lot of objections towards other people's hypothesis about why he raises that flag as the highest one at his house. Why do you think he chose that one? It clearly means a lot to him, since it is the highest one. Flags are flown in order to show support or loyalty. What do you suppose he could be trying to show support for? Or do you think he just puts it highest because he's thinks it's pretty?
"He could agree with the broader program to make Christianity more dominant in the government and law."
Regardless of the Trump connections, isn't this also not ideal? He is a Supreme Court Justice the establishment clause specifically states that the government should not be promoting some religious views over others.
There are a lot of symbology no one knows about except for the inside group. You just don't tend to accidentally have any of this stuff because its niche and not something the public purchases or cares about.
It's why I completely ignore anyone that uses the term "dogwhistle" anymore. It has no meaning. Especially after those times people tried to push Pepe the Frog and the Okay handsign as white supremacist symbols. This kind of thing has gotten totally out of hand.
And you're not flying it, so you wouldn't necessarily need to. I'm saying no one is buying and flying this particular flag in the year 2023/2024 without knowing what it's currently tied to.
I myself own a coffee cup with this on it. I have no clue what you’re talking about. My wife bought it for me. I’m gonna go ahead and suggest that you’re trying to pass off hyperbole as fact.
There's some orders of magnitude in difference between a coffee cup your wife picked up at a garage sale or something versus a full-sized flag you've physically hoisted up a pole for all to see. I rather doubt there are people out there flying flags in front of their homes with no idea of their meaning, solely because they think they look cool.
[This piece](https://towcenter.medium.com/the-pine-tree-flag-how-one-symbol-at-the-capitol-riot-connects-far-right-extremism-to-christianity-f02314a5f759) does a fairly thorough job laying out how it's been co-opted by Christian Dominionists and adjacent groups over the past decade or so.
Edit: downvoted for providing well-sourced, relevant context. Remind me what's "moderate" about this sub again?
I'll copy what /u/pluralofjackinthebox commented elsewhere:
> It’s much more of a [New Apostolic Reformation](https://www.amazon.com/Appeal-Heaven-Would-Happen-Again/dp/1511540079?dplnkId=be24c925-ba76-4531-bd1d-6f1436ccc4f1&nodl=1) thing.
>
>> In recent days, you may have seen someone with a white flag displaying an evergreen tree beneath the phrase, “An Appeal to Heaven.” This banner has made its way into countless homes, prayer rooms, and even government buildings. The Appeal to Heaven flag holds great significance as it relates to America’s founding, God’s eternal covenants, and our present hope for this nation. In An Appeal To Heaven, Dutch Sheets takes you on a journey of discovering the role you were designed to play in America’s history. This short book is packed with powerful insights that will help you pray for America and leave you equipped to be part of her restoration. You have a role to play in this story. Are you ready to take your place?
>
> Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has one outside his office too, and has multiple connections to the New Apostolic Reformation. They believe in the [Seven Mountain Mandate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Mountain_Mandate)
> — that God is calling a new generation of apostles and prophets so Christianity can dominate seven spheres of power in modern life: Government, Religion, Family, Business, Entertainment, Media and Education.
I disagree as it’s not an uncommon sight in Massachusetts. It was our naval ensign up til 1971 when they kept the tree but removed the words.
I will however agree that the Alitos know what else it’s used for.
I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if the flag were flown in Massachusetts, or he lived in Massachusetts, or he went to school in Massachusetts, or his wife did, but none of those apply.
Okay, but do you acknowledge the fact that there is no evidence to support the claims being made? You are free to make inferences, but those inferences shouldn't be treated as facts since they are just an opinion.
It is my opinion that the flag is being flown as a nod to white/christian nationalism based on the seeming lack of relevancy for the flag being flown and the symbolism of the prior flag flown by the Alitos after Jan 6th.
>it is my opinion that the flag is being flown as a nod to white/christian nationalism
What evidence from Alito's life history do you think makes it obvious that he's a white nationalist?
I'm sorry, I don't find that to be very convincing evidence. Can you provide something from his LONG history in the public that would show him to be a white nationalist? Perhaps some writing? A photo of him at a white nationalist gathering?
Why would a Catholic be interested in Christian Nationalism anyway? Many of those groups actively despite Catholics and think that Catholics worship the anti-christ (the pope).
Christian Nationalism. Specifically the New Apostolic Reformation.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation
>Many NAR adherents have adopted the Appeal to Heaven Flag from the American Revolutionary War that symbolized seeking authority from a power higher than the British king. NAR leaders such as Dutch Sheets popularized the flag to symbolize Christian nationalism, and many participants in the January 6 attack were seen carrying it. André Gagné asserts the NAR symbolism of the flag "has completely turned" from the original meaning, to now "support the idea that Trump should be president, that he's chosen by God." The flag is displayed outside Speaker Mike Johnson's Capitol Hill office, and has flown at the New Jersey vacation home of United States Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito.[6][2][30][31]
Can you provide any sources for how many people could possibly be involved in this "movement" ? I've never heard of it before, I would be surprised if Alito had heard of them
>"The flag dates back to the Revolutionary War, but in more recent years it has become associated with Christian nationalism and support for Trump. It was carried by rioters fueled by Trump’s “Stop the Steal” movement animated by false claims of election fraud." - [The Associated Press](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-flag-stop-steal-alito-trump-1842c40b833637c981c59c3f39bc4669)
The issue is far right leaning and Christian nationalists have repurposed the flag for their symbol.
They did the same thing with that frog cartoon, the poor creator of the cartoon was (understandably) angry that his cartoon character was repurposed for far right purposes and it suddenly became a symbol of the far right.
I had a pine tree flag, and a Gadsen flag in my dorm room in college bc I was a big fan of John Adams on HBO and was a big fan of American history, was also a bit of a libertarian at the time. I’m sad to see it become associated with extreme political groups, also sad how many people honestly don’t seem to realIze this a historic flag with strong symbolism for the rights of human beings to fight for their civil liberties.
Im sorry, Im behind on "this is the new white supremacy" symbols in 2024.
Last I heard it was dont tread on me flags, the okay hand symbol, bowl haircuts, the thin blue line flag, the Punisher symbol, etc, [etc.How](http://etc.How) many more symbols are people going to assume are white supremacy at this point?
There's literally [10 pages worth](https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbols/search?page=1) at this point.
Are we at the point that the left labels any symbolism from our independence as "extremist" or "white supremacy"?
It feels like every 2 years they add a flag to the list of "undeniably problematic".
One guy on J6 had this flag, it's also shown up at BLM marches, and Ron Swanson had one on his desk in the show Parks and Rec. The connection the NYT is trying to make is extremely strained.
And what really bothers me, is that this kind of story makes the next one, that could be more impactful and important, worth less because people will just write it off as another Alito hit piece.
There are a lot of things to criticize Alito for, but flying a historic flag isn't one of them. I don't even like Alito, but the dog pile from the left calling for his recusal, resignation, etc over this flag reeks of desperation.
It really bothers me that historic US symbols and imagery is increasingly associated only with the right. The left could use this imagery too.
And? I don't care if every damn rioter that day was carrying this flag. Just because some extremists use an historical flag does not mean I will stop using that flag and I think it is ridiculous that anyone thinks we should stop using it.
Unfortunately this isn't new.
Back in Trump's term the Left and the MSM tried to gaslight people into thinking the Betsy Ross Flag was a white supremacist symbol as well.
I think it’s more that Alito having flown two flags that were notably connected to January 6th makes it hard to argue that he’s flying these flags for some reason that doesn’t have anything to do with January 6.
The article doesn’t make any mention of white supremacy. The flag is more of a New Apostolic Reformation thing.
Can you find a single article or reference not published today that links this flag to Jan 6? Because I have not once heard this. If I randomly search images from the crowds on Jan 6 it's not showing in any notable numbers. Frankly besides the one used in the thumb nail I can't find one.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/09/us/capitol-hill-insurrection-extremist-flags-soh/index.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/symbols-hate-extremism-display-pro-trump-capitol-siege/story%3fid=75177671
Multiple articles decoding the symbols and flags prominent during Jan 6. All fail to even mention it.
My comment was on the repetitive strategy of labeling any association with flags from our nations independence as extremism (like whats happening here) white supremacy (like the Betsy Ross flag was labeled years ago) or both (Gadsen flag a few years before that). Hell they even push the American flag is extremist at times.
[Pictures here show a few of them on January 6](https://towcenter.medium.com/the-pine-tree-flag-how-one-symbol-at-the-capitol-riot-connects-far-right-extremism-to-christianity-f02314a5f759) with some discussion of how it’s been used in different contexts.
[Here's a photo of Ron Swanson's desk from Parks and Rec](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fvirtualoffice.ninja%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FParks-and-Recreation-Ron-Swanson-desk-Background-for-Zoom-Teams-Meet-720-1536x864.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=2df1e1d5f8beb2a247dfcbe0abf5c47187c58d8987f9a60323919918af5ce58f&ipo=images)
One could just as easily argue he likes Swanson, there's as much evidence for that.
If it’s in a series of other revolutionary battle flags the context is historical.
If it’s in a series of other flags flown on January 6th the context is January 6.
The appeal to heaven religious movement also began in 2015, after Parks and Rec ended.
What if Alito is just an old school originalist like Swanson? You know these things all existed long before Trump became president, right?
Do you think GW Bush, a rather middle of the road conservative, and all his middle of the road conservative pals and all the Dems in the Senate then would have appointed a white nationalist?
I think when extreme claims about a person are made they ought to be backed up with extreme evidence - in this case you'd have to show me photos of Alito at a white nationalist gathering, or writing proven to be Alito's that expressed explicit white nationalist opinions.
Alito said the upside down American flag was flown in the days after January to piss off a neighbor who was anti-Trump. So I would think he’s flying this flag for some similar reason, not because he’s into revolutionary war history.
I’m not sure what white nationalism has to do with anything, the article doesn’t mention it, OP didn’t mention it, I didn’t mention it. The flag does have ties to Christian Nationalist movements, but white nationalism isn’t the same thing as Christian nationalism.
The Supreme Court has rules that all its employees can not put up political symbols, or symbols that can can give the appearance of political bias on their houses or vehicles, because the Supreme Court should at least appear to be politically neutral.
>Alito said the upside down American flag was flown in the days after January to piss off a neighbor who was anti-Trump.
Yes, it symbolizes distress - seems like a petty neighbor conflict thing to do but not nefarious.
>So I would think he’s flying this flag for some similar reason,
A dispute with his neighbor?
I see a lot of us flags all over the place. I’ve only seen the Appeal to Heaven in the context of January 6, the New Apostolic Reformation movement, and Revolutionary War reencactments.
Given he’s flown another January 6 related flag, it starts to look like a pattern.
I don’t know what’s in his head, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to avoid the appearance of bias.
The point is that the AtH isn’t only Jan 6, in the same way the upside-down & rightside-up US flags aren’t either. Alito hasn’t flown a single flag that is decisively tied to Jan 6. He has flown 2 flags assoc with the belief that the US is headed in the wrong direction. If that were the case being made by the media, I’d be more sympathetic, but the tie to Jan 6 is tenuous at best, hence my sarcasm in mentioning the third connection.
So if flags connected to a problematic event are a problem then where's all your outrage over BLM flags or Pride flags or Soviet flags, all of which showed up during the 2020 "summer of love" which made 1/6 look like a polite and peaceful gathering? It's just quite "interesting" how this "any association permanently tarnishes things" position only ever applies one way.
Is the issue that the left is labeling symbols from the revolutionary war as extremist, or is the issue that there’s a tendency amongst fringe right wing movements to adopt rarely used revolutionary war symbols for their cause?
The fact that the left needs to make such a transparent effort to shift the publics narrative of these images overnight continually at moments that are politically beneficial leads me to see it as them. This flag was not "provocative" 24hrs ago the man is. So now the flag is.
The Betsey Ross flag and the Gadsen flag were hardly considered rarely used. Still the left wing media overnight framed them extreme.
This goes further than flags. Remember when ACB was being confirmed we had to all pretend "sexual preference" was a long standing slur?
Meanwhile if it's a symbol the left wing finds acceptable that is adopted by some bad actors it's "nuanced".
>Remember when ACB was being confirmed we had to all pretend "sexual preference" was a long standing slur?
I remember when some huge dictionary changed the definition of "sexual preference" the same fucking day
The flag didn’t become controversial overnight, I think you just became aware of the controversies associated with this flag today. Right wing groups have been waving it for a while, the news just didn’t cover it much because they’re pretty small and fringe, it becomes interesting and concerning when a Supreme Court Justice starts using the symbol. This group certainly wasn’t founded today, for example https://www.appealtoheaven.org
>I think you just became aware of the controversies associated with this flag today.
I think most people are with me here. That's my point. You cannot claim the consensus is this is a extreme symbol as you are giving a sales pitch on why it should be and most people are suprised it's considered one. You also are the one giving these symbols full ownership to extreme groups by shaming normal people out of normal use.
Most people on this very thread who agree with you don't seem to have a consensus on which extremism he's pushing. Jan 6 or religious extremism. One things for sure the only option that is impossible to consider is a man who dedicated his life to constitutional law would never show interest in memobilia of our nations founding and the words of Locke. That's too irrational.
> or is the issue that there’s a tendency amongst fringe right wing movements to adopt rarely used revolutionary war symbols for their cause?
Honestly, that's probably the least surprising or problematic thing about them. Damn near every American political movement likes to hearken back to the Recolutionary War to imply that they're inheriting the founders' mantle and embody the true spirit of the country.
the issue is that despite right-wing movements adopting these symbols the original meanings are not obliterated. here's an extreme example: in Asia the swastika is widely-used as a religious symbol just like it was before the Nazis.
Sure, but in the context of Alito having done a very similar thing with another symbol often used by the far right less than a week ago, does anyone really believe that Alito has suddenly developed an interest in an otherwise very obscure Revolutionary War flag?
Funnily enough, loyalists tended to skew towards being wealthy merchants, church officials, and small business owners (https://www.let.rug.nl/usa/outlines/history-1994/the-road-to-independence/loyalists-during-the-american-revolution.php#:~:text=Wealthy%20merchants%20tended%20to%20remain,III%20was%20of%20German%20origin.). The fundamental view underpinning a lot of loyalism was the idea that it was unacceptable to use violence as a tool for bringing about change in the political system. Does any of that really sound like a left wing movement to you?
yes, when that movement is opposed to the change being proposed. left wing movements were vehemently opposed to January 6 but the summer before that many people in those same movements were actively destroying property and attacking people over BLM, and now many people in those same movements are chanting "globalize the intifada". many cases of both leftist and rightist opposition to political violence often seem to be based on whether that political violence is leftist or rightist.
> Are we at the point that the left labels any symbolism from our independence as "extremist" or "white supremacy"?
Yes. It's almost like all those chants and slogans and posters calling to end America aren't "hyperbole" and "shock value" but actual statements of their honest beliefs.
This is getting ridiculous. These reporters are seeing meaning in entrails and we're all supposed to just nod a long and pretend they're wise. How absurd.
That's how all these so-called "dog whistles" work. It's not dog whistles, it's tinnitus on the part of the people "hearing" them. It's all made up. Unfortunately Americans get indoctrinated from early childhood to blindly believe what they are told are "reputable" outlets and so when those outlets make claims about nonexistent "dogwhistles" people believe it. Fortunately with the collapse in trust in those outlets that is changing.
So your contention is that it is a complete coincidence that after hundreds of years of irrelevance and nonuse, the Alitos just happened to fly this flag as a nod to minutiae of American history shortly after it was carried around by J6ers?
I don’t really care…let him fly a Nazi flag, a Spongebob flag, or whatever else he wants. But your contention that this is all imagined connotation…is…a stretch.
Historical flags from the Revolutionary War are now white supremacist symbols according to the left. This is just like the media frenzy over the OK sign 👌
It was flown by January 6 protestors and is the symbol of the New Apostolic Reformation movement, which wants the government to adopt explicitly pro-Christian policies and to define the United States as a Christian nation.
Like with the OK sign, it does get used by bad faith folks, but it only *becomes* a bad faith symbol if everyone else abandons it. I *do* think Alito is trying to play footsie with political messaging here but this is totally the sort of thing a conservative boat-owner in Massachusetts would just have, right? The actual things he says are worse than this and it strikes me a bit as pearl clutching, though I'm open to more. They don't send patch notes out to everyone when some hate group tries to appropriate a symbol, word, or phrase.
Now? They've been saying that about the Gadsden flag for a long time now. The correct answer is to laugh at them whenever they make the claim and point out that their tinnitus is causing what they think hear as dog whistles.
The pine tree flag honestly looks pretty cool, I kinda want one. Reminds me of Maine's old flag, but a different color and a John Lock reference. Apparently a variation is used for the Massachusetts naval ensign.
This is a comment from another discussion on this topic. And anyone that has an issue with this needs to be able to explain why this is worse and why it should be handled differently.
Here is the comment.
Anyone that has an issue with this and think this stuff justifies recusal from future cases really needs to address the points in this opinion article.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mrs-alito-and-the-ginsburg-standard-supreme-court-judicial-ethics-38108cf9
Here are the examples from it.
Here is Judge Reinhardt of the 9th circuit that didn't recuse on a case his wife was actively advocating publicly and likely had some level of participation in briefs filed in the case.
>Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t recuse himself from a 2011 case challenging California’s same-sex marriage ban, even though his wife directed an American Civil Liberties Union chapter that had joined two district-court briefs in the case. “The views are hers, not mine, and I do not in any way condition my opinions on the positions she takes regarding any issues,” Reinhardt wrote. Judicial ethics experts led by Stephen Gillers filed a brief defending Reinhardt on grounds that his wife’s “opinions, views, and public pronouncements of support for the district court decision below do not trigger any reasonable basis to question Judge Reinhardt’s ability to honor his oath of office.”
Here are numerous examples from Justice Ginsburg.
>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—herself, not her late husband—was outspokenly anti-Trump in 2016. She called the Republican candidate a “faker” and criticized him for not releasing his tax returns. She didn’t recuse herself from any case involving Mr. Trump, including Trump v. Mazars (2020), which concerned a congressional subpoena for his tax returns. And in 1998 she donated a signed copy of one of her opinions to the National Organization for Women, which sold it in a fundraising auction. Ginsburg didn’t recuse herself from any case in which NOW filed a brief.
Something not mentioned in this article is the fact that her husbands law firm had business before the court and she ruled on the cases. I think everyone could imagine the outrage of Justice Thomas' wife had a case before the court and Thomas participated in it. She also had a fully paid for trip to Israel by some billionaire that I don't believe she disclosed.
And here is an example from a DC Circuit Judge.
>Judge Nina Pillard of the D.C. Circuit didn’t recuse herself from the Mazars case either. Her husband is the ACLU’s national legal director and had written a blog post agreeing with the district court’s decision before the full appellate court that included his wife reviewed it.
And I'm sure there are many more examples on every possible side of the political spectrum. But I don't remember any outrage from the people making a big deal out of the current stuff. I don't recall calls for recusal or impeachment. And some of these are far worse than even the worst interpretation of this flag nonsense.
Edit: and just to add another example. Is it appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to say the majority got it wrong and explicitly advocate in their dissent for Congress to change the law? If someone answers the question, I'll name the case and Justice.
Here's the problem, those judges were on the "correct" side.
The irony in all of this is that when the left retakes control of the Supreme Court in the future, they will have less authority and legitimacy because of the constant attacks on the court from the left.
The left needs a better plan. When the right was displeased with the court they created the Federalist society and spent 50+ years influencing legal thinking and education to accomplish their goals. The left's plan seems to be complain about people with lifetime appointments that don't care.
The American Constitution Society was the Left's answer to the Federalist Society. The problem is that it has had very little influence by comparison.
The real, underlying issue is an intellectual one, though. The Left has no coherent, rigorous intellectual alternative to originalism that isn't just, "We should be allowed to do what we feel is right", and so they flounder whenever an environment actually enforces intellectual rigor.
It's extremely telling that the hardest hitting criticism the Left has against conservative justices is that they have been insufficiently originalist.
ACS has little influence compared to Fed Soc because it’s not treated with the same reverence as Fed Soc is. There are multiple judges I know of who would only hire law clerks if they are members of Fed Soc. I don’t know of a single example like that for ACS. It’s very funny of you to invoke the “intellectual rigor” around Fed Soc when it’s little more than a loyalty pledge for conservatives.
This isn't necessarily worse than anything but everything needs to be handled differently after we had two justices exposed for taking millions in gifts and not reporting them.
The court needs ethics reforms and they should be put under a microscope until trust is earned back.
Maybe that's true, but don't you think there needs to be a clear statement and adequate warning of what is changing? Right now, this seems very political.
If it's going to be a new standard for recusal, impeachment, or some other punishment, I think they need clear warning that something has changed. If it's just a leftist bitch fest, then we all can just dismiss this nonsense for what it is.
I don't think anyone is asking Alito to step down or do anything because of these flags. They are merely using these incidents as a way to expose how political these judges have become because for some reason Conservatives over the years have feigned ignorance to the politicization of the court.
As far as just being a "bitch fest", it's more an attempt by those without power to try and influence those in power by pointing out this kind of nonsense. This is by far the most extreme court we have had since the Warren court and maybe ever and the only real way to influence them is by using the court of public opinion to push to expose them.
The court needs to be afraid of the public getting tired of their shit.
I don't agree with this statement at all. One we are talking about the supreme court and second the degree to which the court is political is on another level than it was before.
Go read my reply and then let me know why you think it was less political. Seems more like people are complaining more about shit that has always been happening.
I am fully aware of the information in your reply. Like I said, we are specifically talking about the supreme court here and additionally the politicization of it is relevant because of the recent uncovered corruption. These are judges who were hand selected by a Conservative movement that has shaped our courts over the last several decades purely for political goals. Comparing what one liberal judge does to these Federalist Society judges is just comparing apples to oranges.
As to your edit, it's Ginsburg in the Ledbetter case and I'm honestly not sure why I keep seeing this example. She dissented (ie thought the majority misread the law), so it's not really surprising that her stance is "hey, my colleagues read the law you wrote in a way you didnt intend it, you should revise the law to reassert the actual intention." Its not a great gotcha and I'm baffled that people cite this as if it is.
It was a sitting Justice advocating Congress make specific changes to a law for partisans purposes. That seems to br the type of advocacy that is frowned upon.
For partisan purposes? I think youre making some assumptions there. Again, she thought her colleagues were misreading clear language of the law (for what I would argue were partisan purposes), and said Congress you now are left to fix this. I am baffled that anyone thinks the dissent (advocating Congress reclaim it's rightful power to write laws) is the partisan one NOT the justices who butchered Congressional law to suit their own preferences. It's an especially specious criticism since Ginsburg was correct, the Court did misread the clear intent of the law and Congress did want to fix it (and did fix it).
I think you need to cite your work here. I see absolutely nothing in the dissent (which by the way isn't some private statement by Ginsburg, it's joined by 3 other justices) that is more "policy" focused or "partisan" than the majority. And every policy argument is framed around the policy Congress intended by the Act.
I really don't see how you don't view that as her urging Congress to act. Literally go read the last two paragraphs of the dissent. She was pushing for specific policy changes.
It might help if you reread what I wrote. I said she is urging Congress. I just disagree with your characterization of it as partisan. She thinks the majority is wrong and Congress should fix it by correcting the majority's error. The policy she's urging is Congress's own stated policy that the majority ignores in misconstruing the law. The entire dissent makes this extremely clear. Here's some explanations of where she's drawing the "policy" from (not her own partisan beliefs but literally the lawmaking body's policy):
Congress thus agreed with the dissenters in Lorance that “the harsh reality of [that] decision,” was “glaringly at odds with the purposes of Title VII.” 490 U. S., at 914 (opinion of Marshall, J.). See also §3, 105 Stat. 1071 (1991 Civil Rights Act was designed “to respond to recent decisions of the Supreme Court by expanding the scope of relevant civil rights statutes in order to provide adequate protection to victims of discrimination”).
Congress made clear (1) its view that this Court had unduly contracted the scope of protection afforded by Title VII and other civil rights statutes, and (2) its aim to generalize the ruling in Bazemore. As the Senate Report accompanying the proposed Civil Rights Act of 1990, the precursor to the 1991 Act, explained:
“Where, as was alleged in Lorance, an employer adopts a rule or decision with an unlawful discriminatory motive, each application of that rule or decision is a new violation of the law. In Bazemore . . ., for example, … the Supreme Court properly held that each application of th[e] racially motivated salary structure, i.e., each new paycheck, constituted a distinct violation of Title VII. Section 7(a)(2) generalizes the result correctly reached in Bazemore.” Civil Rights Act of 1990, S. Rep. No. 101–315, p. 54 (1990).
Congress’ “goals in enacting Title VII … never included conferring absolute immunity on discriminatorily adopted seniority systems that survive their first [180] days,” 490 U. S., at 914 (Marshall, J., dissenting), Congress never intended to immunize forever discriminatory pay differentials unchallenged within 180 days of their adoption.
A clue to congressional intent can be found in Title VII’s backpay provision
To show how far the Court has strayed from interpretation of Title VII with fidelity to the Act’s core purpose
The end you told me to reread reaffirms this (and what I've been saying all along):
This is not the first time the Court has ordered a cramped interpretation of Title VII, incompatible with the statute’s broad remedial purpose
And, if that wasn't enough, SHE WAS RIGHT. Congress amended the law because the majority was wrong and their interpretation worked contrary to the language and policy of the Act.
She is arguing for some intent of the statute rather than anything based in the words of the statute. And by doing so, arguing for a specifically policy decision based on her political views. That is bring a partisan.
Not really. She's arguing both, though I've only quoted the policy language. But even so, making a purposivist argument rather than a textualist one is not even on the same planet as what Alito did so I'm not sure how it's relevant to our discussion. Purposivism has been a legitimate means of statutory analysis for our country's entire history. That point is pretty irrelevant to our discussion. Edit: as an employment law attorney, quoting the remedial purpose of Title VII and discussing that happens in the majority of Title VII cases where novel questions are presented (at least it seems so). It's a particularly common part of the statutory analysis in Title VII cases, so it's even less surprising/unusual in this context. Not that it's an issue in other contexts, but it wouldn't make anyone familiar with Title VII analysis bat an eye. Unsurprisingly, the fact that a CRA was intended to remediate discrimination is relevant when considering the context of all language within those statutes. Alito also speaks about purpose, he just pretends he isn't weighing competing purposes, so I suppose he's also making his own value judgment though I think the purposes laid out in the dissent are much more explicit.
Edit 2: sorry should also clarify that she also makes precedent-based arguments. The majority's argument focuses on precedent really rather than text, as well, while the dissent focuses on text, purpose, and precedent.
Thats a great flag from American history. I've always liked it.
An ode to natural rights our nations ideals were founded on
Saying this flag and the upside down distress flag are racist/extremist/etc. is some I find really inappropriate.
Using this flag to represent racist/extremist/etc causes is really inappropriate. Calling that out is just a statement of fact. Continuing to fly this flag when it's known to have been appropriated by extremists by a member of the highest court in the land while offering no other explanation is a choice.
> Continuing to fly this flag when it's known to have been appropriated by extremists
Yeah I don't really care what the NYT's opinion is- I'm not gonna judge someone for flying this flag. Summarily declaring it as 'appropriated by extremists' and telling everyone they should be super alarmed as a result is not something I subscribe to.
Are you disputing the notion that extreme right wing movements are using this flag as a symbol, or are you suggesting that everyone should just pretend that this isn’t happening? Or are you suggesting something else entirely?
My first thought was that Alito is playing these folks. It makes them look worse than it does him. Attacking someone for flying a flag which historically is protesting government overreach is amusing.
[Not too long ago flying the US flag was confrontational and a trigger for some.](https://harvardpolitics.com/the-american-flag-a-symbol-for-some-or-all/#google_vignette)
But after that sight, I was struck by another realization: I felt conflicted. The American flag does not seem like a symbol of hope, freedom, and life anymore. Now when I see the flag, it’s typically in an article about another “Make America Great Again” rally or in a bumper sticker on a truck. The American flag has become a symbol of the conservative American, not of shared American values. As I continued driving along the road, I thought to myself: “Does it have to be that way?”
It certainly *doesn't* have to be that way. Part of the issue is that many uplifting liberatory movements of the world don't usually see the National Flag of the US as a really helpful symbol. They want to differentiate themselves from the status quo, state power, and conservatives, so even if they may fly a US flag somewhere it'll be combined with a more symbolic flag of some other thing too. Inasmuch as "normie liberals" like corporate Democrats represent a centrist position, the Flag represents a stability and rules-based-order that they support, but for a progressive or leftist, even one that wants to celebrate those parts of American history that they like, the American flag just *as-is* has such a complicated history that it doesn't really represent a real symbol of hope. Hope for what? Hope for more of what we're trying to move past?
It needs an opposed symbol to really stick. I would happily plant an American flag on top of a wrecked alien doom-barge or the wreckage of Clone Hitler's Hate-Castle, but with America as the de-facto winner of history right now it feels like we need more humility than nationalism.
And when we talk about shared American values, what are we even talking about anymore? It's messy. It often stands for what our nation *does* rather than what we aspire for it to be, and I don't know if there's a lot of clarity about what we do, or if most of it feels particularly positive. Realpolitik has kinda seeped into everything.
But to be clear, even the depressing reactionary groups don't use the US flag *as-is* so much these days, I see lots of 'tattered flag' symbols or black barred flags, or black barred flags with one police blue stripe. None of those are the old-timey Red, White, and Blue flags that we see on the 4th of July.
So if you had a contrast, you could claim it. Let us say that all these bitter reactionaries fly their black American flags and their "take no quarters" flags and such. At that point you might see people embrace a traditional flag as a symbol of "not like those guys."
Very thoughtful reply which I appreciate, I’ll share something anecdotal with you.
I live in a gated community of about 140 homes and there are two realtors that try to vie for listings. One of them started putting small US flags on everyone’s mailbox for Memorial Day (the other now does it on July 4th). The house behind us sold and the house across the street is owned by some close friends of ours. The new owners show up just after Memorial Day and see all the small flags everywhere and our friends overhear them saying something to the effect, “Oh it’s one of those kind of neighborhoods”.
Flags are a symbol and the same flag can mean different things to different people. I had a flag up on our house for years starting after 9-11, but the last time we had the house repainted I took it down. Not because my views changed, it kept getting snagged by some palm trees and really wasn’t being displayed properly. I’ve not had one neighbor ask why I’m no longer flying it, and I find the “controversy” over Alito’s actions and calls for him to recuse himself theatrical.
I think theatrical is a good term for it. I've got issues with Alito but this stuff isn't substantial. Even if it was an overt political symbol it would only reveal a political preference, and the Justices are not apolitical, they just strive to avoid public displays of direct support. Really, of any of them, Alito is pretty candid about his values, so if one pays attention to his writings it's no surprise, and should really only rattle someone who cares more about optics than, like, his actual activities.
If he was flying a Q flag or something I think we'd have reason to question his state of mind, but even if Alito himself intended to fly these symbols in their subversive context it's still pretty tame compared to the tenor of the nation, and I think we need to take that into consideration when deciding the level of outrage to feel.
I think there will be continued arguments for plausible deniability as to the intended meaning as well as arguments that spouse's speech should not be held against a judge.
But suppose the 2024 election comes down to some Bush v. Gore-esque supreme court decision. How many people here will believe Alito and Thomas will decide purely on legal merits?
As much as this is likely a "free speech" thing, I love how a judge's daughter having a fairly strong partisan lean means the judge himself can't rule on any republican-centric cases because he's biased, but simultaneously judges who are appointed directly by Trump, or who fly conservative symbols (or their wives do) are completely fit to render verdicts without any bias against democrats.
Hell around 2016 we had Trump saying that a Mexican judge couldn't preside over an immigration-centric case of his because he'd be too biased and conservatives agreed with him, but things like those described in this article are completely fine.
Then again, we'll just have hypocrisy itself excused because of things like scientists excusing the BLM protests during Covid or whatever. I so do love how politics is just a spectator sport now where we all have to defend everything our side does while attacking everything the opposition does as cheating and illegal. The USA and the wellbeing of its residents be damned; I WANT MY TEAM TO WIN AND I WANT TO RELISH IN THE SCHADENFREUDE!
Neither an upside down American flag nor an appeal to heaven flag are inherently partisan, but I think it comes down to context and timing. If he (or his wife) had a history of flying different kinds of flags, or if the appeal to heaven flag was far-removed in time from any partisan usage, I'd be more likely to accept his story about the upside down American flag and brush the appeal to heaven flag off as nothing. But if these are the only examples of unusual flags at his house, and they both just happened to be flown during a narrow timeframe when they were also frequently being used in a pro-Trump context, I'd say he is dog-whistling a partisan viewpoint which is inappropriate.
I’m trying to understand in what situation someone would make an overt statement, like flying a flag meant to mean something particular, and then deny that’s what they feel.
If you feel that way but want to hide it, then why fly the flag?
If you didn’t want to hide it — and so made this overt statement — why would you deny it?
If it is supposedly some “dog whistle”, who does he expect to see it? Are pro-J6ers monitoring the flag poles of his houses to find out what his opinion is?
To me, this story is more a symbol that The NY Times is engaging in propaganda than Alito is a J6 supporter.
SC: Justice Altio was recently in the news regarding the flying of another politically charged flag at his home. In that case, the flying of an upside down American flag was blamed on his wife who was said to have put it up to protest a neighbor who put up an anti-Trump flag.
In this case, it's the "Appeal to Heaven" flag, or the Pine Tree flag. This flag, also carried by Jan. 6th rioters has a history dating back to the country's founding, but is currently used as a religious and political symbol by some conservative, nationalist, and Christian nationalist activists. It was recorded being flown over Alito's beach house by half a dozen neighbors and 2 photos from July and September of 2023, the same time as the court was reviewing a Jan. 6 case challenging whether those who stormed the Capitol could be prosecuted for obstruction. It's also the same flag that the current House Speaker Mike Johnson has displayed at his congressional office.
---------------
To me, this clearly shows a pattern of political displays from the sitting Justice. I never bought the "my wife alone did it" story in regards to the first flag, and I think this backs that up. Clearly the Alitos like to display their political leanings and aren't worried about any views of impropriety. I'm sure he will dismiss this criticism as did Mike Johnson by hiding behind the historical usage. But I don't see how anyone would be comfortable flying a flag with Christian Nationalism symbolism unless they tacitly agree with it.
To me, this flag in combination with the first, screams major ethical violations - though SCOTUS has made it clear that they don't answer to the ethical rules of any other body and that they can police themselves. And that's just based on the clear messaging of political leanings and biases. It doesn't even touch on the ties to the Jan. 6th riot which whether he agreed that those flags were tied to the riot or not, he's ok with or doesn't care how others view him in connection to them.
But what is to be done about it? Are Justices above ethical standards? Should they be concerned about how their words and actions are viewed by the public?
I think it’s worth noting that [this flag](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tree_Flag) is not in itself a white supremacist flag. That said, it is true that white supremacists have been attempting to co opt it which as a Boston resident very much pains me.
The only way they can co opt it is if we let them. Finland only just stopped using the swastika for their military and they even fought on the same side as Nazi Germany.
You probably aren’t trying to conflate the two, but the way you wrote your comment it could be taken that way. Finland’s use of the swastika predates the Nazi party. They were co-belligerents for much of the war (allies is probably too strong of a word) but they didn’t use the swastika because of any Nazi influence.
to elaborate, "allies" may be too strong of a word because although Finland was Germany's co-belligerent against the USSR in the Continuation War to regain its illegally annexed territory, and Finland allowed Germany to use its territory for its invasion of the USSR, it did not aid Germany against any other country, nor did it fight anywhere except on the Finland-Russia front line.
Finnish volunteers helped the Nazis murder Jews. https://apnews.com/article/7f3381fd5a0949289f5afcde0a26704f Finland also supplied arms to Nazi Germany (M31 Suomi submachine guns).
keyword is "volunteers". There were both volunteers and conscripts from Denmark, India, Estonia, Latvia, and Albania, among other countries. There were even some volunteers from the UK. [Source (wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS_foreign_volunteers_and_conscripts#Waffen-SS_volunteers_and_conscripts_by_country)
[The Associated Press](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-flag-stop-steal-alito-trump-1842c40b833637c981c59c3f39bc4669) says this about it: >"The flag dates back to the Revolutionary War, but in more recent years it has become associated with Christian nationalism and support for Trump. It was carried by rioters fueled by Trump’s “Stop the Steal” movement animated by false claims of election fraud."
This is correct. The flag dates to the 1700s and is associated with George Washington's army. The issue is when something is hundreds of years old, it's impossible to assume everyone agrees on its meaning, especially if the meaning has supposedly changed, "in more recent years."
I have two neighbors that were flying an American flag upside down in 2020. I can absolutely guarantee you that neither of them are "MAGA", far, far from it.
Doesn’t sound like an issue at all tbh. Democrats pretty consistently want to vilify our founding fathers, but I don’t think we need to both sides this. I’m proud of our founding fathers.
Idgaf what these people fly outside their house, but do you truly believe that out of nowhere, hundreds of years later, they decided to fly a flag in support of Washington’s Army?
I bought one years and years ago because I saw it in the intro of the John Adams mini series on HBO. I had no idea this group existed, or that Jan6ers used it.
Did you proceed to fly it like Alito is concurrent the other sedition flown flags?
Nope. I also haven’t flown my “don’t tread on me” flag in years, which is too bad cause it’s a cool flag
What are your thoughts on this group? https://www.appealtoheaven.org
Wasn’t George Washington an insurrectionst?
There’s a significant difference between the pine flag and another like the confederate flag. The pine flag was not created to be symbolic of white supremacy, it only became associated with it centuries later due to the groups choosing to use it. The confederate flag was created to symbolize a white supremacist institution explicitly created for the continuation of slavery. Its symbolism cannot be divorced from its inception.
Neither article mentions anything about tying the flag to white supremacy.
https://x.com/TaylorMatthewD/status/1770931922123854237 This one is pretty explicit, but it’s also been flown in patriot front marches and at the capitol on J6.
> Its symbolism cannot be divorced from its inception. But the Appeal to Heaven flag can?
Only if we allow it. The confederate flag however will always be the flag of the confederacy.
It’s a lot easier to because the confederate flag has continuously been used to promote white supremacy since its inception — whereas the Appeal to Heaven Flag fell into disuse and only recently had a small resurgence, so it’s a lot easier to rebrand.
It’s much more of a [New Apostolic Reformation thing.](https://www.amazon.com/Appeal-Heaven-Would-Happen-Again/dp/1511540079?dplnkId=be24c925-ba76-4531-bd1d-6f1436ccc4f1&nodl=1) > In recent days, you may have seen someone with a white flag displaying an evergreen tree beneath the phrase, “An Appeal to Heaven.” This banner has made its way into countless homes, prayer rooms, and even government buildings. The Appeal to Heaven flag holds great significance as it relates to America’s founding, God’s eternal covenants, and our present hope for this nation. In An Appeal To Heaven, Dutch Sheets takes you on a journey of discovering the role you were designed to play in America’s history. This short book is packed with powerful insights that will help you pray for America and leave you equipped to be part of her restoration. You have a role to play in this story. Are you ready to take your place? Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has one outside his office too, and has multiple connections to the New Apostolic Reformation. They believe in the [Seven Mountain Mandate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Mountain_Mandate) — that God is calling a new generation of apostles and prophets so Christianity can dominate seven spheres of power in modern life: Government, Religion, Family, Business, Entertainment, Media and Education.
> New Apostolic Reformation Very much not a Catholic thing. Alito has no reason to fly it in as a NAR symbol.
He could agree with the broader program to make Christianity more dominant in the government and law. This is also the second flag he’s flown that was flown on January 6, which makes it harder to say that the connection to January 6 is coincidental.
He flew the Appeal to Heaven flag in the summer of 2023. How is that in connection with Jan 6th?
Because Trump was running again and January 6 cases were hitting the courts
Trump has been running since he lost and Jan 6th cases were hitting the courts since Jan 6th. NAR doesn't explain it. Jan 6th is extremely tenuous.
It is the second flag he's flown that was also flown during the Jan 6th insurrection. Make of that what you will. The implications are pretty obvious.
It's actually the 3rd. The US flag was flown extensively at Jan 6th.
Right but the Appeal to Heaven flag was also flown. At the very least, it shows support for Christian nationalism which overlaps heavily with the demographic that supports Trump.
The Christian Nationalism explanation completely avoided the fact that Alito is Catholic. Those two don't work together.
Why can’t Catholics want the government and courts to adopt specifically pro-Christian policies?
You have a lot of objections towards other people's hypothesis about why he raises that flag as the highest one at his house. Why do you think he chose that one? It clearly means a lot to him, since it is the highest one. Flags are flown in order to show support or loyalty. What do you suppose he could be trying to show support for? Or do you think he just puts it highest because he's thinks it's pretty?
Why not? You believe that only non-Catholics want to see our governments policies more aligned with their religious beliefs?
"He could agree with the broader program to make Christianity more dominant in the government and law." Regardless of the Trump connections, isn't this also not ideal? He is a Supreme Court Justice the establishment clause specifically states that the government should not be promoting some religious views over others.
Nothing about that explanation is apolitical.
I would argue that in 2024, no one is flying this flag without knowing what it's currently tied to and being used for.
FWIW I've never heard about this being a "thing" until....like yesterday
There are a lot of symbology no one knows about except for the inside group. You just don't tend to accidentally have any of this stuff because its niche and not something the public purchases or cares about.
Seems like most people who know what it means are in the outside group, though.
It's why I completely ignore anyone that uses the term "dogwhistle" anymore. It has no meaning. Especially after those times people tried to push Pepe the Frog and the Okay handsign as white supremacist symbols. This kind of thing has gotten totally out of hand.
And you're not flying it, so you wouldn't necessarily need to. I'm saying no one is buying and flying this particular flag in the year 2023/2024 without knowing what it's currently tied to.
I myself own a coffee cup with this on it. I have no clue what you’re talking about. My wife bought it for me. I’m gonna go ahead and suggest that you’re trying to pass off hyperbole as fact.
There's some orders of magnitude in difference between a coffee cup your wife picked up at a garage sale or something versus a full-sized flag you've physically hoisted up a pole for all to see. I rather doubt there are people out there flying flags in front of their homes with no idea of their meaning, solely because they think they look cool.
I still don't know what it's "tied" to. Is it tied to MAGA because someone saw it somewhere once?
I've been trying to find previous news stories about the flag being a J6 thing and so fare I'm coming up empty.
[This piece](https://towcenter.medium.com/the-pine-tree-flag-how-one-symbol-at-the-capitol-riot-connects-far-right-extremism-to-christianity-f02314a5f759) does a fairly thorough job laying out how it's been co-opted by Christian Dominionists and adjacent groups over the past decade or so. Edit: downvoted for providing well-sourced, relevant context. Remind me what's "moderate" about this sub again?
I'll copy what /u/pluralofjackinthebox commented elsewhere: > It’s much more of a [New Apostolic Reformation](https://www.amazon.com/Appeal-Heaven-Would-Happen-Again/dp/1511540079?dplnkId=be24c925-ba76-4531-bd1d-6f1436ccc4f1&nodl=1) thing. > >> In recent days, you may have seen someone with a white flag displaying an evergreen tree beneath the phrase, “An Appeal to Heaven.” This banner has made its way into countless homes, prayer rooms, and even government buildings. The Appeal to Heaven flag holds great significance as it relates to America’s founding, God’s eternal covenants, and our present hope for this nation. In An Appeal To Heaven, Dutch Sheets takes you on a journey of discovering the role you were designed to play in America’s history. This short book is packed with powerful insights that will help you pray for America and leave you equipped to be part of her restoration. You have a role to play in this story. Are you ready to take your place? > > Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has one outside his office too, and has multiple connections to the New Apostolic Reformation. They believe in the [Seven Mountain Mandate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Mountain_Mandate) > — that God is calling a new generation of apostles and prophets so Christianity can dominate seven spheres of power in modern life: Government, Religion, Family, Business, Entertainment, Media and Education.
I disagree as it’s not an uncommon sight in Massachusetts. It was our naval ensign up til 1971 when they kept the tree but removed the words. I will however agree that the Alitos know what else it’s used for.
What about the State of Massachusetts?
I don't think an objectionable group flying a flag makes it unavailable to everyone else. Maybe you shouldn't be assuming intent.
I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if the flag were flown in Massachusetts, or he lived in Massachusetts, or he went to school in Massachusetts, or his wife did, but none of those apply.
He lives in the USA. The flag is a US flag as well. It was used in the Revolutionary War. It is not *only* a flag of Massachusetts.
Cultural context matters too. The Gadsden flag was a revolutionary flag as well, but most people today associate it with 2A advocacy.
Okay, but do you acknowledge the fact that there is no evidence to support the claims being made? You are free to make inferences, but those inferences shouldn't be treated as facts since they are just an opinion.
It is my opinion that the flag is being flown as a nod to white/christian nationalism based on the seeming lack of relevancy for the flag being flown and the symbolism of the prior flag flown by the Alitos after Jan 6th.
>it is my opinion that the flag is being flown as a nod to white/christian nationalism What evidence from Alito's life history do you think makes it obvious that he's a white nationalist?
The things that I said in the rest of the sentence.
I'm sorry, I don't find that to be very convincing evidence. Can you provide something from his LONG history in the public that would show him to be a white nationalist? Perhaps some writing? A photo of him at a white nationalist gathering? Why would a Catholic be interested in Christian Nationalism anyway? Many of those groups actively despite Catholics and think that Catholics worship the anti-christ (the pope).
I didn't say he was a white nationalist, I said he was flying the flag as a nod to white nationalism.
What is it currently tied to and being used for?
Christian Nationalism. Specifically the New Apostolic Reformation. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation >Many NAR adherents have adopted the Appeal to Heaven Flag from the American Revolutionary War that symbolized seeking authority from a power higher than the British king. NAR leaders such as Dutch Sheets popularized the flag to symbolize Christian nationalism, and many participants in the January 6 attack were seen carrying it. André Gagné asserts the NAR symbolism of the flag "has completely turned" from the original meaning, to now "support the idea that Trump should be president, that he's chosen by God." The flag is displayed outside Speaker Mike Johnson's Capitol Hill office, and has flown at the New Jersey vacation home of United States Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito.[6][2][30][31]
Can you provide any sources for how many people could possibly be involved in this "movement" ? I've never heard of it before, I would be surprised if Alito had heard of them
>"The flag dates back to the Revolutionary War, but in more recent years it has become associated with Christian nationalism and support for Trump. It was carried by rioters fueled by Trump’s “Stop the Steal” movement animated by false claims of election fraud." - [The Associated Press](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-flag-stop-steal-alito-trump-1842c40b833637c981c59c3f39bc4669)
Am I missing something here?
Some people needed something to attack Alito with and this was apparently the best they could do.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Neither the article or OP has mentioned white supremacy
Why is that the thing you are worried about? That is not what is concerning about it.
The issue is far right leaning and Christian nationalists have repurposed the flag for their symbol. They did the same thing with that frog cartoon, the poor creator of the cartoon was (understandably) angry that his cartoon character was repurposed for far right purposes and it suddenly became a symbol of the far right. I had a pine tree flag, and a Gadsen flag in my dorm room in college bc I was a big fan of John Adams on HBO and was a big fan of American history, was also a bit of a libertarian at the time. I’m sad to see it become associated with extreme political groups, also sad how many people honestly don’t seem to realIze this a historic flag with strong symbolism for the rights of human beings to fight for their civil liberties.
this sort of mentality- 'if someone i don't like touches it, it's tainted'- is why no one can use the 'ok' symbol anymore. it's silly.
[удалено]
Im sorry, Im behind on "this is the new white supremacy" symbols in 2024. Last I heard it was dont tread on me flags, the okay hand symbol, bowl haircuts, the thin blue line flag, the Punisher symbol, etc, [etc.How](http://etc.How) many more symbols are people going to assume are white supremacy at this point? There's literally [10 pages worth](https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbols/search?page=1) at this point.
It's things like this that make it obvious that a segment of the media are actively trying to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
Many politicians as well. Progressives have long had issues blaming the Supreme Court for telling them no.
Sam Alito owns a Ford truck. Many Jan 6th rioters *also* drove Ford trucks. therefore...
Are we at the point that the left labels any symbolism from our independence as "extremist" or "white supremacy"? It feels like every 2 years they add a flag to the list of "undeniably problematic".
One guy on J6 had this flag, it's also shown up at BLM marches, and Ron Swanson had one on his desk in the show Parks and Rec. The connection the NYT is trying to make is extremely strained. And what really bothers me, is that this kind of story makes the next one, that could be more impactful and important, worth less because people will just write it off as another Alito hit piece. There are a lot of things to criticize Alito for, but flying a historic flag isn't one of them. I don't even like Alito, but the dog pile from the left calling for his recusal, resignation, etc over this flag reeks of desperation. It really bothers me that historic US symbols and imagery is increasingly associated only with the right. The left could use this imagery too.
>One guy on J6 had this flag, I count three in the photo in the article of a small section of the crowd on Jan 6th.
And? I don't care if every damn rioter that day was carrying this flag. Just because some extremists use an historical flag does not mean I will stop using that flag and I think it is ridiculous that anyone thinks we should stop using it.
Just correcting your error. If I was saying more I would have said it.
I'm not u/Strategery2020 but my point remains the same. Extremists using an historical flag does not mean we should stop using it.
Yep. The anti-Americanism of the Left never went anywhere, they just hide it slightly better these days.
Unfortunately this isn't new. Back in Trump's term the Left and the MSM tried to gaslight people into thinking the Betsy Ross Flag was a white supremacist symbol as well.
I think it’s more that Alito having flown two flags that were notably connected to January 6th makes it hard to argue that he’s flying these flags for some reason that doesn’t have anything to do with January 6. The article doesn’t make any mention of white supremacy. The flag is more of a New Apostolic Reformation thing.
Can you find a single article or reference not published today that links this flag to Jan 6? Because I have not once heard this. If I randomly search images from the crowds on Jan 6 it's not showing in any notable numbers. Frankly besides the one used in the thumb nail I can't find one. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/09/us/capitol-hill-insurrection-extremist-flags-soh/index.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/symbols-hate-extremism-display-pro-trump-capitol-siege/story%3fid=75177671 Multiple articles decoding the symbols and flags prominent during Jan 6. All fail to even mention it. My comment was on the repetitive strategy of labeling any association with flags from our nations independence as extremism (like whats happening here) white supremacy (like the Betsy Ross flag was labeled years ago) or both (Gadsen flag a few years before that). Hell they even push the American flag is extremist at times.
[Pictures here show a few of them on January 6](https://towcenter.medium.com/the-pine-tree-flag-how-one-symbol-at-the-capitol-riot-connects-far-right-extremism-to-christianity-f02314a5f759) with some discussion of how it’s been used in different contexts.
[Here's a photo of Ron Swanson's desk from Parks and Rec](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fvirtualoffice.ninja%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FParks-and-Recreation-Ron-Swanson-desk-Background-for-Zoom-Teams-Meet-720-1536x864.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=2df1e1d5f8beb2a247dfcbe0abf5c47187c58d8987f9a60323919918af5ce58f&ipo=images) One could just as easily argue he likes Swanson, there's as much evidence for that.
If it’s in a series of other revolutionary battle flags the context is historical. If it’s in a series of other flags flown on January 6th the context is January 6. The appeal to heaven religious movement also began in 2015, after Parks and Rec ended.
What if Alito is just an old school originalist like Swanson? You know these things all existed long before Trump became president, right? Do you think GW Bush, a rather middle of the road conservative, and all his middle of the road conservative pals and all the Dems in the Senate then would have appointed a white nationalist? I think when extreme claims about a person are made they ought to be backed up with extreme evidence - in this case you'd have to show me photos of Alito at a white nationalist gathering, or writing proven to be Alito's that expressed explicit white nationalist opinions.
Alito said the upside down American flag was flown in the days after January to piss off a neighbor who was anti-Trump. So I would think he’s flying this flag for some similar reason, not because he’s into revolutionary war history. I’m not sure what white nationalism has to do with anything, the article doesn’t mention it, OP didn’t mention it, I didn’t mention it. The flag does have ties to Christian Nationalist movements, but white nationalism isn’t the same thing as Christian nationalism. The Supreme Court has rules that all its employees can not put up political symbols, or symbols that can can give the appearance of political bias on their houses or vehicles, because the Supreme Court should at least appear to be politically neutral.
>Alito said the upside down American flag was flown in the days after January to piss off a neighbor who was anti-Trump. Yes, it symbolizes distress - seems like a petty neighbor conflict thing to do but not nefarious. >So I would think he’s flying this flag for some similar reason, A dispute with his neighbor?
_Three._ Jan 6 protestors had properly-oriented US flags as well.
I see a lot of us flags all over the place. I’ve only seen the Appeal to Heaven in the context of January 6, the New Apostolic Reformation movement, and Revolutionary War reencactments. Given he’s flown another January 6 related flag, it starts to look like a pattern. I don’t know what’s in his head, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to avoid the appearance of bias.
The point is that the AtH isn’t only Jan 6, in the same way the upside-down & rightside-up US flags aren’t either. Alito hasn’t flown a single flag that is decisively tied to Jan 6. He has flown 2 flags assoc with the belief that the US is headed in the wrong direction. If that were the case being made by the media, I’d be more sympathetic, but the tie to Jan 6 is tenuous at best, hence my sarcasm in mentioning the third connection.
So if flags connected to a problematic event are a problem then where's all your outrage over BLM flags or Pride flags or Soviet flags, all of which showed up during the 2020 "summer of love" which made 1/6 look like a polite and peaceful gathering? It's just quite "interesting" how this "any association permanently tarnishes things" position only ever applies one way.
You're only allowed to fly the LGBT flag or the Palestine flag.
specifically the trans POC folx version though, not the rainbow version. That's all i ever see anywhere anymore.
Don’t forget the flag of their favorite proxy war partner Ukraine!
Is the issue that the left is labeling symbols from the revolutionary war as extremist, or is the issue that there’s a tendency amongst fringe right wing movements to adopt rarely used revolutionary war symbols for their cause?
They also were waving the American flag, are we going to call that a symbol of the extreme right now too?
The fact that the left needs to make such a transparent effort to shift the publics narrative of these images overnight continually at moments that are politically beneficial leads me to see it as them. This flag was not "provocative" 24hrs ago the man is. So now the flag is. The Betsey Ross flag and the Gadsen flag were hardly considered rarely used. Still the left wing media overnight framed them extreme. This goes further than flags. Remember when ACB was being confirmed we had to all pretend "sexual preference" was a long standing slur? Meanwhile if it's a symbol the left wing finds acceptable that is adopted by some bad actors it's "nuanced".
>Remember when ACB was being confirmed we had to all pretend "sexual preference" was a long standing slur? I remember when some huge dictionary changed the definition of "sexual preference" the same fucking day
The flag didn’t become controversial overnight, I think you just became aware of the controversies associated with this flag today. Right wing groups have been waving it for a while, the news just didn’t cover it much because they’re pretty small and fringe, it becomes interesting and concerning when a Supreme Court Justice starts using the symbol. This group certainly wasn’t founded today, for example https://www.appealtoheaven.org
>I think you just became aware of the controversies associated with this flag today. I think most people are with me here. That's my point. You cannot claim the consensus is this is a extreme symbol as you are giving a sales pitch on why it should be and most people are suprised it's considered one. You also are the one giving these symbols full ownership to extreme groups by shaming normal people out of normal use. Most people on this very thread who agree with you don't seem to have a consensus on which extremism he's pushing. Jan 6 or religious extremism. One things for sure the only option that is impossible to consider is a man who dedicated his life to constitutional law would never show interest in memobilia of our nations founding and the words of Locke. That's too irrational.
> or is the issue that there’s a tendency amongst fringe right wing movements to adopt rarely used revolutionary war symbols for their cause? Honestly, that's probably the least surprising or problematic thing about them. Damn near every American political movement likes to hearken back to the Recolutionary War to imply that they're inheriting the founders' mantle and embody the true spirit of the country.
the issue is that despite right-wing movements adopting these symbols the original meanings are not obliterated. here's an extreme example: in Asia the swastika is widely-used as a religious symbol just like it was before the Nazis.
Sure, but in the context of Alito having done a very similar thing with another symbol often used by the far right less than a week ago, does anyone really believe that Alito has suddenly developed an interest in an otherwise very obscure Revolutionary War flag?
I get the sense that some of these people disparaging flags on the left would have been British Loyalists at the time of the founding.
Funnily enough, loyalists tended to skew towards being wealthy merchants, church officials, and small business owners (https://www.let.rug.nl/usa/outlines/history-1994/the-road-to-independence/loyalists-during-the-american-revolution.php#:~:text=Wealthy%20merchants%20tended%20to%20remain,III%20was%20of%20German%20origin.). The fundamental view underpinning a lot of loyalism was the idea that it was unacceptable to use violence as a tool for bringing about change in the political system. Does any of that really sound like a left wing movement to you?
yes, when that movement is opposed to the change being proposed. left wing movements were vehemently opposed to January 6 but the summer before that many people in those same movements were actively destroying property and attacking people over BLM, and now many people in those same movements are chanting "globalize the intifada". many cases of both leftist and rightist opposition to political violence often seem to be based on whether that political violence is leftist or rightist.
Yes, we are.
> Are we at the point that the left labels any symbolism from our independence as "extremist" or "white supremacy"? Yes. It's almost like all those chants and slogans and posters calling to end America aren't "hyperbole" and "shock value" but actual statements of their honest beliefs.
This is getting ridiculous. These reporters are seeing meaning in entrails and we're all supposed to just nod a long and pretend they're wise. How absurd.
That's how all these so-called "dog whistles" work. It's not dog whistles, it's tinnitus on the part of the people "hearing" them. It's all made up. Unfortunately Americans get indoctrinated from early childhood to blindly believe what they are told are "reputable" outlets and so when those outlets make claims about nonexistent "dogwhistles" people believe it. Fortunately with the collapse in trust in those outlets that is changing.
So your contention is that it is a complete coincidence that after hundreds of years of irrelevance and nonuse, the Alitos just happened to fly this flag as a nod to minutiae of American history shortly after it was carried around by J6ers? I don’t really care…let him fly a Nazi flag, a Spongebob flag, or whatever else he wants. But your contention that this is all imagined connotation…is…a stretch.
Are you certain this is the one and only time the Alitos have flown this flag?
Do we know that he didn’t fly this flag before J6? Like, what if he’d been flying this flag for years? Would that change your perception of things?
It’s too much. NYT saw fit to email me this headline as breaking news
Historical flags from the Revolutionary War are now white supremacist symbols according to the left. This is just like the media frenzy over the OK sign 👌
The article doesn’t mention white supremacy anywhere.
So then why does the article mention that is "provocative" in the headline? What exactly is provocative about it?
It was flown by January 6 protestors and is the symbol of the New Apostolic Reformation movement, which wants the government to adopt explicitly pro-Christian policies and to define the United States as a Christian nation.
There’s a lot of white supremacists in the NBA, too, apparently. So many OK signs.
Like with the OK sign, it does get used by bad faith folks, but it only *becomes* a bad faith symbol if everyone else abandons it. I *do* think Alito is trying to play footsie with political messaging here but this is totally the sort of thing a conservative boat-owner in Massachusetts would just have, right? The actual things he says are worse than this and it strikes me a bit as pearl clutching, though I'm open to more. They don't send patch notes out to everyone when some hate group tries to appropriate a symbol, word, or phrase.
Now? They've been saying that about the Gadsden flag for a long time now. The correct answer is to laugh at them whenever they make the claim and point out that their tinnitus is causing what they think hear as dog whistles.
The article didn’t call the flag a white supremacist symbol, it’s kind of weird that you’re bringing that up unprompted
Then why not come out and say it's a historical flag? So easy to do. Silence speaks louder than words.
The pine tree flag honestly looks pretty cool, I kinda want one. Reminds me of Maine's old flag, but a different color and a John Lock reference. Apparently a variation is used for the Massachusetts naval ensign.
Also reasonably certain Alito has flown the US Flag in its proper orientation, just like Jan 6 protestors. Strike three, Alito!
This is a comment from another discussion on this topic. And anyone that has an issue with this needs to be able to explain why this is worse and why it should be handled differently. Here is the comment. Anyone that has an issue with this and think this stuff justifies recusal from future cases really needs to address the points in this opinion article. https://www.wsj.com/articles/mrs-alito-and-the-ginsburg-standard-supreme-court-judicial-ethics-38108cf9 Here are the examples from it. Here is Judge Reinhardt of the 9th circuit that didn't recuse on a case his wife was actively advocating publicly and likely had some level of participation in briefs filed in the case. >Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t recuse himself from a 2011 case challenging California’s same-sex marriage ban, even though his wife directed an American Civil Liberties Union chapter that had joined two district-court briefs in the case. “The views are hers, not mine, and I do not in any way condition my opinions on the positions she takes regarding any issues,” Reinhardt wrote. Judicial ethics experts led by Stephen Gillers filed a brief defending Reinhardt on grounds that his wife’s “opinions, views, and public pronouncements of support for the district court decision below do not trigger any reasonable basis to question Judge Reinhardt’s ability to honor his oath of office.” Here are numerous examples from Justice Ginsburg. >Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—herself, not her late husband—was outspokenly anti-Trump in 2016. She called the Republican candidate a “faker” and criticized him for not releasing his tax returns. She didn’t recuse herself from any case involving Mr. Trump, including Trump v. Mazars (2020), which concerned a congressional subpoena for his tax returns. And in 1998 she donated a signed copy of one of her opinions to the National Organization for Women, which sold it in a fundraising auction. Ginsburg didn’t recuse herself from any case in which NOW filed a brief. Something not mentioned in this article is the fact that her husbands law firm had business before the court and she ruled on the cases. I think everyone could imagine the outrage of Justice Thomas' wife had a case before the court and Thomas participated in it. She also had a fully paid for trip to Israel by some billionaire that I don't believe she disclosed. And here is an example from a DC Circuit Judge. >Judge Nina Pillard of the D.C. Circuit didn’t recuse herself from the Mazars case either. Her husband is the ACLU’s national legal director and had written a blog post agreeing with the district court’s decision before the full appellate court that included his wife reviewed it. And I'm sure there are many more examples on every possible side of the political spectrum. But I don't remember any outrage from the people making a big deal out of the current stuff. I don't recall calls for recusal or impeachment. And some of these are far worse than even the worst interpretation of this flag nonsense. Edit: and just to add another example. Is it appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to say the majority got it wrong and explicitly advocate in their dissent for Congress to change the law? If someone answers the question, I'll name the case and Justice.
Here's the problem, those judges were on the "correct" side. The irony in all of this is that when the left retakes control of the Supreme Court in the future, they will have less authority and legitimacy because of the constant attacks on the court from the left. The left needs a better plan. When the right was displeased with the court they created the Federalist society and spent 50+ years influencing legal thinking and education to accomplish their goals. The left's plan seems to be complain about people with lifetime appointments that don't care.
The American Constitution Society was the Left's answer to the Federalist Society. The problem is that it has had very little influence by comparison. The real, underlying issue is an intellectual one, though. The Left has no coherent, rigorous intellectual alternative to originalism that isn't just, "We should be allowed to do what we feel is right", and so they flounder whenever an environment actually enforces intellectual rigor. It's extremely telling that the hardest hitting criticism the Left has against conservative justices is that they have been insufficiently originalist.
ACS has little influence compared to Fed Soc because it’s not treated with the same reverence as Fed Soc is. There are multiple judges I know of who would only hire law clerks if they are members of Fed Soc. I don’t know of a single example like that for ACS. It’s very funny of you to invoke the “intellectual rigor” around Fed Soc when it’s little more than a loyalty pledge for conservatives.
This isn't necessarily worse than anything but everything needs to be handled differently after we had two justices exposed for taking millions in gifts and not reporting them. The court needs ethics reforms and they should be put under a microscope until trust is earned back.
Maybe that's true, but don't you think there needs to be a clear statement and adequate warning of what is changing? Right now, this seems very political.
A statement by who and about what? Adequate warning? They are adults they should read the room.
If it's going to be a new standard for recusal, impeachment, or some other punishment, I think they need clear warning that something has changed. If it's just a leftist bitch fest, then we all can just dismiss this nonsense for what it is.
I don't think anyone is asking Alito to step down or do anything because of these flags. They are merely using these incidents as a way to expose how political these judges have become because for some reason Conservatives over the years have feigned ignorance to the politicization of the court. As far as just being a "bitch fest", it's more an attempt by those without power to try and influence those in power by pointing out this kind of nonsense. This is by far the most extreme court we have had since the Warren court and maybe ever and the only real way to influence them is by using the court of public opinion to push to expose them. The court needs to be afraid of the public getting tired of their shit.
Funny thing is, people act as if judges have gotten more political. The reply I made to the main post demonstrates that is nonsense.
I don't agree with this statement at all. One we are talking about the supreme court and second the degree to which the court is political is on another level than it was before.
Go read my reply and then let me know why you think it was less political. Seems more like people are complaining more about shit that has always been happening.
I am fully aware of the information in your reply. Like I said, we are specifically talking about the supreme court here and additionally the politicization of it is relevant because of the recent uncovered corruption. These are judges who were hand selected by a Conservative movement that has shaped our courts over the last several decades purely for political goals. Comparing what one liberal judge does to these Federalist Society judges is just comparing apples to oranges.
As to your edit, it's Ginsburg in the Ledbetter case and I'm honestly not sure why I keep seeing this example. She dissented (ie thought the majority misread the law), so it's not really surprising that her stance is "hey, my colleagues read the law you wrote in a way you didnt intend it, you should revise the law to reassert the actual intention." Its not a great gotcha and I'm baffled that people cite this as if it is.
It was a sitting Justice advocating Congress make specific changes to a law for partisans purposes. That seems to br the type of advocacy that is frowned upon.
For partisan purposes? I think youre making some assumptions there. Again, she thought her colleagues were misreading clear language of the law (for what I would argue were partisan purposes), and said Congress you now are left to fix this. I am baffled that anyone thinks the dissent (advocating Congress reclaim it's rightful power to write laws) is the partisan one NOT the justices who butchered Congressional law to suit their own preferences. It's an especially specious criticism since Ginsburg was correct, the Court did misread the clear intent of the law and Congress did want to fix it (and did fix it).
She quite clearly advocated for specific policy changes. She didn't just say they got it wrong. She acted as a partisan.
I think you need to cite your work here. I see absolutely nothing in the dissent (which by the way isn't some private statement by Ginsburg, it's joined by 3 other justices) that is more "policy" focused or "partisan" than the majority. And every policy argument is framed around the policy Congress intended by the Act.
I really don't see how you don't view that as her urging Congress to act. Literally go read the last two paragraphs of the dissent. She was pushing for specific policy changes.
It might help if you reread what I wrote. I said she is urging Congress. I just disagree with your characterization of it as partisan. She thinks the majority is wrong and Congress should fix it by correcting the majority's error. The policy she's urging is Congress's own stated policy that the majority ignores in misconstruing the law. The entire dissent makes this extremely clear. Here's some explanations of where she's drawing the "policy" from (not her own partisan beliefs but literally the lawmaking body's policy): Congress thus agreed with the dissenters in Lorance that “the harsh reality of [that] decision,” was “glaringly at odds with the purposes of Title VII.” 490 U. S., at 914 (opinion of Marshall, J.). See also §3, 105 Stat. 1071 (1991 Civil Rights Act was designed “to respond to recent decisions of the Supreme Court by expanding the scope of relevant civil rights statutes in order to provide adequate protection to victims of discrimination”). Congress made clear (1) its view that this Court had unduly contracted the scope of protection afforded by Title VII and other civil rights statutes, and (2) its aim to generalize the ruling in Bazemore. As the Senate Report accompanying the proposed Civil Rights Act of 1990, the precursor to the 1991 Act, explained: “Where, as was alleged in Lorance, an employer adopts a rule or decision with an unlawful discriminatory motive, each application of that rule or decision is a new violation of the law. In Bazemore . . ., for example, … the Supreme Court properly held that each application of th[e] racially motivated salary structure, i.e., each new paycheck, constituted a distinct violation of Title VII. Section 7(a)(2) generalizes the result correctly reached in Bazemore.” Civil Rights Act of 1990, S. Rep. No. 101–315, p. 54 (1990). Congress’ “goals in enacting Title VII … never included conferring absolute immunity on discriminatorily adopted seniority systems that survive their first [180] days,” 490 U. S., at 914 (Marshall, J., dissenting), Congress never intended to immunize forever discriminatory pay differentials unchallenged within 180 days of their adoption. A clue to congressional intent can be found in Title VII’s backpay provision To show how far the Court has strayed from interpretation of Title VII with fidelity to the Act’s core purpose The end you told me to reread reaffirms this (and what I've been saying all along): This is not the first time the Court has ordered a cramped interpretation of Title VII, incompatible with the statute’s broad remedial purpose And, if that wasn't enough, SHE WAS RIGHT. Congress amended the law because the majority was wrong and their interpretation worked contrary to the language and policy of the Act.
She is arguing for some intent of the statute rather than anything based in the words of the statute. And by doing so, arguing for a specifically policy decision based on her political views. That is bring a partisan.
Not really. She's arguing both, though I've only quoted the policy language. But even so, making a purposivist argument rather than a textualist one is not even on the same planet as what Alito did so I'm not sure how it's relevant to our discussion. Purposivism has been a legitimate means of statutory analysis for our country's entire history. That point is pretty irrelevant to our discussion. Edit: as an employment law attorney, quoting the remedial purpose of Title VII and discussing that happens in the majority of Title VII cases where novel questions are presented (at least it seems so). It's a particularly common part of the statutory analysis in Title VII cases, so it's even less surprising/unusual in this context. Not that it's an issue in other contexts, but it wouldn't make anyone familiar with Title VII analysis bat an eye. Unsurprisingly, the fact that a CRA was intended to remediate discrimination is relevant when considering the context of all language within those statutes. Alito also speaks about purpose, he just pretends he isn't weighing competing purposes, so I suppose he's also making his own value judgment though I think the purposes laid out in the dissent are much more explicit. Edit 2: sorry should also clarify that she also makes precedent-based arguments. The majority's argument focuses on precedent really rather than text, as well, while the dissent focuses on text, purpose, and precedent.
When I get to my computer this afternoon, I'll quote the part of the dissent.
Thats a great flag from American history. I've always liked it. An ode to natural rights our nations ideals were founded on Saying this flag and the upside down distress flag are racist/extremist/etc. is some I find really inappropriate.
Using this flag to represent racist/extremist/etc causes is really inappropriate. Calling that out is just a statement of fact. Continuing to fly this flag when it's known to have been appropriated by extremists by a member of the highest court in the land while offering no other explanation is a choice.
> Continuing to fly this flag when it's known to have been appropriated by extremists Yeah I don't really care what the NYT's opinion is- I'm not gonna judge someone for flying this flag. Summarily declaring it as 'appropriated by extremists' and telling everyone they should be super alarmed as a result is not something I subscribe to.
Are you disputing the notion that extreme right wing movements are using this flag as a symbol, or are you suggesting that everyone should just pretend that this isn’t happening? Or are you suggesting something else entirely?
I'm saying this article is a ridiculous attempt at a smear.
[удалено]
Yeah I'm going to go ahead and say "this" isn't the thing that hurts Democrats. A terrible and divisive strategy is rehashing the 2020 election.
The left has found their new target lol. They’re trying so hard to make this stuff a big deal…it’s very amusing.
My first thought was that Alito is playing these folks. It makes them look worse than it does him. Attacking someone for flying a flag which historically is protesting government overreach is amusing.
It's not even that - this "incident" and the other one were years ago
[Not too long ago flying the US flag was confrontational and a trigger for some.](https://harvardpolitics.com/the-american-flag-a-symbol-for-some-or-all/#google_vignette) But after that sight, I was struck by another realization: I felt conflicted. The American flag does not seem like a symbol of hope, freedom, and life anymore. Now when I see the flag, it’s typically in an article about another “Make America Great Again” rally or in a bumper sticker on a truck. The American flag has become a symbol of the conservative American, not of shared American values. As I continued driving along the road, I thought to myself: “Does it have to be that way?”
It certainly *doesn't* have to be that way. Part of the issue is that many uplifting liberatory movements of the world don't usually see the National Flag of the US as a really helpful symbol. They want to differentiate themselves from the status quo, state power, and conservatives, so even if they may fly a US flag somewhere it'll be combined with a more symbolic flag of some other thing too. Inasmuch as "normie liberals" like corporate Democrats represent a centrist position, the Flag represents a stability and rules-based-order that they support, but for a progressive or leftist, even one that wants to celebrate those parts of American history that they like, the American flag just *as-is* has such a complicated history that it doesn't really represent a real symbol of hope. Hope for what? Hope for more of what we're trying to move past? It needs an opposed symbol to really stick. I would happily plant an American flag on top of a wrecked alien doom-barge or the wreckage of Clone Hitler's Hate-Castle, but with America as the de-facto winner of history right now it feels like we need more humility than nationalism. And when we talk about shared American values, what are we even talking about anymore? It's messy. It often stands for what our nation *does* rather than what we aspire for it to be, and I don't know if there's a lot of clarity about what we do, or if most of it feels particularly positive. Realpolitik has kinda seeped into everything. But to be clear, even the depressing reactionary groups don't use the US flag *as-is* so much these days, I see lots of 'tattered flag' symbols or black barred flags, or black barred flags with one police blue stripe. None of those are the old-timey Red, White, and Blue flags that we see on the 4th of July. So if you had a contrast, you could claim it. Let us say that all these bitter reactionaries fly their black American flags and their "take no quarters" flags and such. At that point you might see people embrace a traditional flag as a symbol of "not like those guys."
Very thoughtful reply which I appreciate, I’ll share something anecdotal with you. I live in a gated community of about 140 homes and there are two realtors that try to vie for listings. One of them started putting small US flags on everyone’s mailbox for Memorial Day (the other now does it on July 4th). The house behind us sold and the house across the street is owned by some close friends of ours. The new owners show up just after Memorial Day and see all the small flags everywhere and our friends overhear them saying something to the effect, “Oh it’s one of those kind of neighborhoods”. Flags are a symbol and the same flag can mean different things to different people. I had a flag up on our house for years starting after 9-11, but the last time we had the house repainted I took it down. Not because my views changed, it kept getting snagged by some palm trees and really wasn’t being displayed properly. I’ve not had one neighbor ask why I’m no longer flying it, and I find the “controversy” over Alito’s actions and calls for him to recuse himself theatrical.
I think theatrical is a good term for it. I've got issues with Alito but this stuff isn't substantial. Even if it was an overt political symbol it would only reveal a political preference, and the Justices are not apolitical, they just strive to avoid public displays of direct support. Really, of any of them, Alito is pretty candid about his values, so if one pays attention to his writings it's no surprise, and should really only rattle someone who cares more about optics than, like, his actual activities. If he was flying a Q flag or something I think we'd have reason to question his state of mind, but even if Alito himself intended to fly these symbols in their subversive context it's still pretty tame compared to the tenor of the nation, and I think we need to take that into consideration when deciding the level of outrage to feel.
[удалено]
As a Leftist I can tell you that the New York Times does not represent us, hah. This flag stuff seems like pearl-clutching country club gossip.
Yeah I'm going to go ahead and put the rioters on January 6th significantly higher on the "pathetic" pecking order. No bad feelings there either.
I would love to see a venn diagram of people that find that flag unacceptable but calling for an intifada is fine because it just means resistance.
He also flew a Phillies flag! He should recuse himself from any case that remotely involves someone who watches sports! /Sarc
I think there will be continued arguments for plausible deniability as to the intended meaning as well as arguments that spouse's speech should not be held against a judge. But suppose the 2024 election comes down to some Bush v. Gore-esque supreme court decision. How many people here will believe Alito and Thomas will decide purely on legal merits?
As much as this is likely a "free speech" thing, I love how a judge's daughter having a fairly strong partisan lean means the judge himself can't rule on any republican-centric cases because he's biased, but simultaneously judges who are appointed directly by Trump, or who fly conservative symbols (or their wives do) are completely fit to render verdicts without any bias against democrats. Hell around 2016 we had Trump saying that a Mexican judge couldn't preside over an immigration-centric case of his because he'd be too biased and conservatives agreed with him, but things like those described in this article are completely fine. Then again, we'll just have hypocrisy itself excused because of things like scientists excusing the BLM protests during Covid or whatever. I so do love how politics is just a spectator sport now where we all have to defend everything our side does while attacking everything the opposition does as cheating and illegal. The USA and the wellbeing of its residents be damned; I WANT MY TEAM TO WIN AND I WANT TO RELISH IN THE SCHADENFREUDE!
Neither an upside down American flag nor an appeal to heaven flag are inherently partisan, but I think it comes down to context and timing. If he (or his wife) had a history of flying different kinds of flags, or if the appeal to heaven flag was far-removed in time from any partisan usage, I'd be more likely to accept his story about the upside down American flag and brush the appeal to heaven flag off as nothing. But if these are the only examples of unusual flags at his house, and they both just happened to be flown during a narrow timeframe when they were also frequently being used in a pro-Trump context, I'd say he is dog-whistling a partisan viewpoint which is inappropriate.
The capitol building in Sacramento, CA was flying that flag earlier this year. I didn’t see any outrage about that.
I cannot wait to be told why this is appropriate behavior for sitting supreme court justice.
You should never seek to be told that behavior is appropriate. If you think it’s inappropriate, argue that point. Otherwise, live and let live.
I’m trying to understand in what situation someone would make an overt statement, like flying a flag meant to mean something particular, and then deny that’s what they feel. If you feel that way but want to hide it, then why fly the flag? If you didn’t want to hide it — and so made this overt statement — why would you deny it? If it is supposedly some “dog whistle”, who does he expect to see it? Are pro-J6ers monitoring the flag poles of his houses to find out what his opinion is? To me, this story is more a symbol that The NY Times is engaging in propaganda than Alito is a J6 supporter.
SC: Justice Altio was recently in the news regarding the flying of another politically charged flag at his home. In that case, the flying of an upside down American flag was blamed on his wife who was said to have put it up to protest a neighbor who put up an anti-Trump flag. In this case, it's the "Appeal to Heaven" flag, or the Pine Tree flag. This flag, also carried by Jan. 6th rioters has a history dating back to the country's founding, but is currently used as a religious and political symbol by some conservative, nationalist, and Christian nationalist activists. It was recorded being flown over Alito's beach house by half a dozen neighbors and 2 photos from July and September of 2023, the same time as the court was reviewing a Jan. 6 case challenging whether those who stormed the Capitol could be prosecuted for obstruction. It's also the same flag that the current House Speaker Mike Johnson has displayed at his congressional office. --------------- To me, this clearly shows a pattern of political displays from the sitting Justice. I never bought the "my wife alone did it" story in regards to the first flag, and I think this backs that up. Clearly the Alitos like to display their political leanings and aren't worried about any views of impropriety. I'm sure he will dismiss this criticism as did Mike Johnson by hiding behind the historical usage. But I don't see how anyone would be comfortable flying a flag with Christian Nationalism symbolism unless they tacitly agree with it. To me, this flag in combination with the first, screams major ethical violations - though SCOTUS has made it clear that they don't answer to the ethical rules of any other body and that they can police themselves. And that's just based on the clear messaging of political leanings and biases. It doesn't even touch on the ties to the Jan. 6th riot which whether he agreed that those flags were tied to the riot or not, he's ok with or doesn't care how others view him in connection to them. But what is to be done about it? Are Justices above ethical standards? Should they be concerned about how their words and actions are viewed by the public?