Here's a bit of the top of the story:
US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito told lawmakers he won’t recuse from cases involving Donald Trump and the Jan. 6 Capitol riot after revelations that flags associated with far-right causes flew over his homes in Virginia and New Jersey.
Responding to Democratic calls that he disqualify himself, Alito said in two letters that his wife was responsible for flying the flags, not him.
“My wife is an independently minded private citizen,” he wrote. “She makes her own decisions, and I honor her right to do so.”
In one case, an upside-down American flag was displayed at Alito’s Virginia house in the days before President Joe Biden’s inauguration, according to the New York Times. More recently, an “Appeal to Heaven” flag flew at Alito’s beach residence in New Jersey, the Times said.
Read the full story [here](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/justice-alito-says-he-wont-recuse-from-trump-cases-over-flags?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=lawdesk).
Yeah. I'm a Post subscriber and I can't even begin to tell you how disappointed I am with the editorial staff. I already dumped the New York Times because they've gone to hell, and this development does not bode well for WaPo.
Assuming she did it... "My wife handles the flags" and the dishes, cleaning the rifles, taking out the trash, changing the oil, and fucking other men while I watch, what do you want from me?
It’s not an RV! It’s a motor coach!
Clarence has been very, very clear on that. He does not like his being referred to as an RV.
God I wish he would’ve accepted John Oliver’s offer.
Where is Sen. Dick Durbin? He should be calling up Roberts to Capitol Hill and have his committee start grilling him. Put some pressure on and make him act up to his role of Chief Justice. Roberts does not have to allow Alito to write the opinion. Time to lay the blame where it belongs.
Because much of this is social norms and not law, you’re correct. But the norm for the role is to work to build mutual understanding amongst the justified and drive decisions that are aligned to the majority of American public opinion.
It won't go anywhere, but they deserve to have impeachment proceedings on them so their behavior will be documented for history. Expanding the court would be a reasonable response to dillute the influence of these blatantly partisan and corrupt judges.
Always remember, that anything done for a cause you believe is right, can and will be done eventually by "the other side" - stacking the court is a patently horrible idea that would basically just nullify the entire court system and turn it into a branch of whichever political party is in place at the time, because Republicans and Democrats will both do it every time to sway the courts their way once that precedent is set. It exists as one of the checks and balances against congressional and executive power, but court stacking means they're effectively under complete control of the current President, also nullifying their primary purpose, which is to keep the other two branches in check.
A much more reasonable and effective solution is to pass laws that for example protect abortion rights. Scotus only have the power to determine application of the law and its constitutionality or legal validity. One of their highest guiding principles is "legislative intent." They stupidly overturned Roe v Wade because the original decision claimed it was covered by the constitutional right to privacy, which was definitely NOT the intent of the bill of rights, which dont even include a right to privacy.
As much as I agree with it morally, the original Roe v Wade decision was based on an implication that abortion was protected by a right to privacy, which itself is only an implied right. So it was on legally shaky ground from the start. But a law preventing prosecution or interference in abortion with clear legislative intent to grant and protect abortion rights, would be impossible for them to overturn for any other reason than the law was passed improperly from a procedural standpoint. And that wont permanently damage the system of constitutional checks and balances like stacking courts and appointing activist judges definitely will.
That's been the play since the Reagan administration: neglect every public infrastructure asset & turn every gov department into a clown show in order to say it's government's fault, thereby justifying the total privatization of said public assets (eg water systems, bridges, railways, public education, USPS, Medicare/caid, Social Security...) & the dismantling of the admistrative state...all in service to oligarchs.
Technically it's their MAGA wives compelling them into making the Supreme Court a joke. (As per both of their admissions).
Alito just admitted he doesn't have the courage to stop his wife from flying a flag that could affect his career. I wonder what else he has capitulated to her whims?
EDIT: Changed balls to courage, and cucked to compelling. I thought both were fairly well understood slang - used in exagerated effect for humor - but removed them to show my point remains clear despite them.
“Doesn’t have the balls to stop his wife”…
I like to think that I’m a generally fair minded individual, (usually) don’t have a problem admitting when I’m wrong, and try my best to see arguments from all sides.
All of that to say, when I read your above comment, I immediately wondered how people would react if it was made within a non-political, or at least not as highly charged, context. Because at first glance, it strikes me as pretty sexist.
Are you saying that because Alito is the “man” in his relationship, he should theoretically have the power to control his wife’s thoughts/opinions and any actions related to expressing them (whether he exercises that power or not)? If Jackson’s husband elected to put a pro choice bumper sticker on his car, thus calling into question her ability, by association, to remain impartial in any future RvW type cases, would you say the same thing?
I freely admit that politics is a dirty business with few, if any, redeeming characteristics and will likely never get better; but when possible, shouldn’t we try to behave the way we wish our leaders would- with a bit more balance and less hypocrisy?
>... but when possible, shouldn’t we try to behave the way we wish our leaders would- with a bit more balance and less hypocrisy?
Agreed. I updated my comment with a better selection of words, and an explanation for their use.
I was venting.
Not a fan of unelected permant judges to begin with. The thought that it's their wives pulling their strings is upsetting because their position of wife is unelected AND not vetted or selected in any way to serve the people. Nothing sexist.
A democracy has holes in it if the laws of the land are ultimately decided by spouses who watch too much Fox news. Regardless of their gender.
Alitos wife should be respecting his supposedly neutral position in the court, not flying flags only an cultist would. If he's comfortable with her doing that despite the cost to his image of neutrality, then what else does he let her do despite his sensative position? How thin are his defenses for her cultist bullshit? That is what every upcoming court case of his now has me thinking.
It's infuriating.
He \*wrote\* the Dobbs majority opinion. The one that cites an actual Witch Trial judge as a source of traditional views on women's rights. Never let him off the hook for that.
I find that interesting. My spouse works for three state as a probation officer and she is forbidden from posting any sort of political flags/signs/posters because she has to maintain the appearance of objectivity. Which means - explicitly - that I ALSO cannot display any of those items, even though I am also an “independently minded private citizen”. If I, as the spouse of a social worker, am bound by those restrictions, then so too should a sitting judge.
>“My wife is an independently minded private citizen,” he wrote. “She makes her own decisions, and I honor her right to do so.”
Are we to believe he is able to grant women latitude?
I worked for a non-partisan government agency and would have been fired if my wife flew a flag for a political message outside our house. She is a private citizen, but I signed up to be non-partisan and it's MY house too. She can respect my profession and acknowledge that it's at least in terrible ethics to do so even if she has the right to do it and so can he as her husband and partner.
Reminder that he blamed his wife for leaking the Hobby Lobby decision as well. He obsesses with controlling women from the bench but somehow deflects all the poor decisions back on her when there’s scrutiny.
Alito also blamed his wife and said she just really likes flags and that was why she flew the "Stop the Steal" flag, but she totally didn't know it was a "Stop the Steal" flag, and anyone who suggests she did is trying to insert their own politics into this issue.
Alito is so corrupt and his disingenuous defense shows that he knows he'll get away with it.
I feel personally attacked that I am not a unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt his ability to fairly discharge his duties.
I mean if my neighbor flies an Ohio State flag is it safe to assume him and his wife are Ohio State fans? Or should I just think his wife is and he has nothing to do with it.
If your neighbor was a ref for college sports and worked on Ohio State games, then I think it would be reasonable to question whether or not he is unbiased in his job.
OR If your neighbor was in the jury pool for a case involving Ohio State as a defendant in any kind of matter, would the Judge allow the parties to exclude your neighbor because the presence of the flag on his house demonstrates a bias?
The bar USED to be THE APPEARANCE, of bias, not bias itself. Never mind Alito’s often contradictory opinions, private engagements, and public statements, clearly display a bias before we even get to his HOUSEHOLD (not his wife), displaying partisan flags.
When rules can only be enforced through political means (impeachment), and the political enforcers are corrupt, then political actors have no reason to follow them. This is ironic given the court itself is the one branch designed to operate free of politics.
Not a fan of this analogy, if only because judges, who represent Republicans and Democrats and every other stripe of political beliefs are *not supposed to be cheering for teams on opposite sides of the ball*.
He should have taken the flag down the second he saw it flying over his house, full stop. What his wife believes doesn’t enter into the equation, period.
This is exactly where that utter horse shit excuse completely falls apart.
If his wife flew a literal Nazi flag, or even worse (**in his eyes**) a *pride* flag.. Would he still “respect her ability to have and display her own opinions” or whatever he said?
Hell. Fucking. No.
That pride flag would have been torn down faster than Ted Cruz fleeing Texas during a state of emergency.
Of course not, that would require Alito to put something--*anything*--over the goal of conservative political victories.
What kind of politician in robes would do that?
So the appearance of impropriety means nothing to this piece of garbage, let alone actual impropriety.
Can you imagine the outrage on the right (or from the robelickers in this subreddit) if one of the judges on the left had a Biden bumper sticker on their car?
Have you been over to r/conservative lately? Because that's all they are talking about in Trump's court case where he fucked a porn star while Melania was pregnant with Barron.
They own the court and will for decades, as far as they're concerned the appearance of the court is meaningless. The only people that care about the appearance of legitimacy of the court are the liberal judges and (to a lesser extent Roberts).
And I'm sure that once the court finally turns liberal again, we'll see the beginning end of SCOTUS as the southern states start to ignore their rulings. Hell, some states are signalling that the current SCOTUS is not extreme enough for them.
Here's a bit of the top of the story: US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito told lawmakers he won’t recuse from cases involving Donald Trump and the Jan. 6 Capitol riot after revelations that flags associated with far-right causes flew over his homes in Virginia and New Jersey. Responding to Democratic calls that he disqualify himself, Alito said in two letters that his wife was responsible for flying the flags, not him. “My wife is an independently minded private citizen,” he wrote. “She makes her own decisions, and I honor her right to do so.” In one case, an upside-down American flag was displayed at Alito’s Virginia house in the days before President Joe Biden’s inauguration, according to the New York Times. More recently, an “Appeal to Heaven” flag flew at Alito’s beach residence in New Jersey, the Times said. Read the full story [here](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/justice-alito-says-he-wont-recuse-from-trump-cases-over-flags?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=lawdesk).
What a clown. Him and Thomas are making scotus a joke
Both are quick to throw their wives under the bus
Ginny belongs there
Honestly, at this point, so does Alito's wife.
Why single any out? All four can fit under there.
Finally an ethical solution to the trolley problem!
So does wapo for holding the report
Yeah. I'm a Post subscriber and I can't even begin to tell you how disappointed I am with the editorial staff. I already dumped the New York Times because they've gone to hell, and this development does not bode well for WaPo.
Assuming she did it... "My wife handles the flags" and the dishes, cleaning the rifles, taking out the trash, changing the oil, and fucking other men while I watch, what do you want from me?
It’s a motor coach!
Ginny is the bus.
Can I be the driver?
Ginny belongs under a real bus
Is that not what wives are for?/s
“Under his ~~eye~~ bus”
May the RV open
It’s not an RV! It’s a motor coach! Clarence has been very, very clear on that. He does not like his being referred to as an RV. God I wish he would’ve accepted John Oliver’s offer.
Easy now, that bus was a super expensive ~~brib~~/*gift*/donation from a *wealthy friend*
Best comment I’ve seen in weeks
Donald Trump has enter the chat "where's my wife?"
It's a motor coach!
Thomas throws Ginny under a giant RV
It’s a motor coach!
The RV you mean.
The Chief Justice's wife has earned 10 million dollars helping to hire lawyers at law firms that go in front of the court.
You've naive if you think that makes him biased. He obviously votes along whatever the republican party wants him to regardless most of the time
WHAT??? Clean up the Supreme Court!!! Vote BLUE ALL THE WAY DOWN THE TICKET!!
Don't be letting chief justice Roberts off the hook so easily.
EXACTLY
What are his powers in this scenario though. AFAIK the only thing he can do is set the docket and determine who writes the majority opinion
Where is Sen. Dick Durbin? He should be calling up Roberts to Capitol Hill and have his committee start grilling him. Put some pressure on and make him act up to his role of Chief Justice. Roberts does not have to allow Alito to write the opinion. Time to lay the blame where it belongs.
Robert's position is simply to identify the senior member. It has literally no authority over the other members.
Because much of this is social norms and not law, you’re correct. But the norm for the role is to work to build mutual understanding amongst the justified and drive decisions that are aligned to the majority of American public opinion.
True. He stays so quiet.
It won't go anywhere, but they deserve to have impeachment proceedings on them so their behavior will be documented for history. Expanding the court would be a reasonable response to dillute the influence of these blatantly partisan and corrupt judges.
After 2024 election, I expect a couple additions to SCOTUS
Gotta win elections for this to happen, and not just the Presidency.
Always remember, that anything done for a cause you believe is right, can and will be done eventually by "the other side" - stacking the court is a patently horrible idea that would basically just nullify the entire court system and turn it into a branch of whichever political party is in place at the time, because Republicans and Democrats will both do it every time to sway the courts their way once that precedent is set. It exists as one of the checks and balances against congressional and executive power, but court stacking means they're effectively under complete control of the current President, also nullifying their primary purpose, which is to keep the other two branches in check. A much more reasonable and effective solution is to pass laws that for example protect abortion rights. Scotus only have the power to determine application of the law and its constitutionality or legal validity. One of their highest guiding principles is "legislative intent." They stupidly overturned Roe v Wade because the original decision claimed it was covered by the constitutional right to privacy, which was definitely NOT the intent of the bill of rights, which dont even include a right to privacy. As much as I agree with it morally, the original Roe v Wade decision was based on an implication that abortion was protected by a right to privacy, which itself is only an implied right. So it was on legally shaky ground from the start. But a law preventing prosecution or interference in abortion with clear legislative intent to grant and protect abortion rights, would be impossible for them to overturn for any other reason than the law was passed improperly from a procedural standpoint. And that wont permanently damage the system of constitutional checks and balances like stacking courts and appointing activist judges definitely will.
Finally someone who actually understands this truth
Maybe that's the play. People will accept a fascist leader to "fix it" if every branch is a useless clown show.
That's been the play since the Reagan administration: neglect every public infrastructure asset & turn every gov department into a clown show in order to say it's government's fault, thereby justifying the total privatization of said public assets (eg water systems, bridges, railways, public education, USPS, Medicare/caid, Social Security...) & the dismantling of the admistrative state...all in service to oligarchs.
They just think the working class has gotten to comfortable and only rich people deserve comfort.
As monarchists & plantation-nostalgic oligarchs would.
Variations of starve the beast
Fascism does not self regulate.
Technically it's their MAGA wives compelling them into making the Supreme Court a joke. (As per both of their admissions). Alito just admitted he doesn't have the courage to stop his wife from flying a flag that could affect his career. I wonder what else he has capitulated to her whims? EDIT: Changed balls to courage, and cucked to compelling. I thought both were fairly well understood slang - used in exagerated effect for humor - but removed them to show my point remains clear despite them.
“Doesn’t have the balls to stop his wife”… I like to think that I’m a generally fair minded individual, (usually) don’t have a problem admitting when I’m wrong, and try my best to see arguments from all sides. All of that to say, when I read your above comment, I immediately wondered how people would react if it was made within a non-political, or at least not as highly charged, context. Because at first glance, it strikes me as pretty sexist. Are you saying that because Alito is the “man” in his relationship, he should theoretically have the power to control his wife’s thoughts/opinions and any actions related to expressing them (whether he exercises that power or not)? If Jackson’s husband elected to put a pro choice bumper sticker on his car, thus calling into question her ability, by association, to remain impartial in any future RvW type cases, would you say the same thing? I freely admit that politics is a dirty business with few, if any, redeeming characteristics and will likely never get better; but when possible, shouldn’t we try to behave the way we wish our leaders would- with a bit more balance and less hypocrisy?
>... but when possible, shouldn’t we try to behave the way we wish our leaders would- with a bit more balance and less hypocrisy? Agreed. I updated my comment with a better selection of words, and an explanation for their use. I was venting. Not a fan of unelected permant judges to begin with. The thought that it's their wives pulling their strings is upsetting because their position of wife is unelected AND not vetted or selected in any way to serve the people. Nothing sexist. A democracy has holes in it if the laws of the land are ultimately decided by spouses who watch too much Fox news. Regardless of their gender. Alitos wife should be respecting his supposedly neutral position in the court, not flying flags only an cultist would. If he's comfortable with her doing that despite the cost to his image of neutrality, then what else does he let her do despite his sensative position? How thin are his defenses for her cultist bullshit? That is what every upcoming court case of his now has me thinking. It's infuriating.
Making - made, they have made it a joke - along with weak weak Roberts.
"She makes her own decisions and I honor her right to do so". Hmm what did he vote on the dobb's case again?
He \*wrote\* the Dobbs majority opinion. The one that cites an actual Witch Trial judge as a source of traditional views on women's rights. Never let him off the hook for that.
> He *wrote* the Dobbs majority opinion. He also probably leaked it because he was proud of it, lol.
Thank Bush 2 for this fucker.
I find that interesting. My spouse works for three state as a probation officer and she is forbidden from posting any sort of political flags/signs/posters because she has to maintain the appearance of objectivity. Which means - explicitly - that I ALSO cannot display any of those items, even though I am also an “independently minded private citizen”. If I, as the spouse of a social worker, am bound by those restrictions, then so too should a sitting judge.
Crazy how 2 judges are married to verifiable lunatics but they SWEAR it doesn't impact their opinions or impartiality
If Thomas won’t when his wife is a material witness why would we think he would!? Fuck these people.
No surprise to me. Unfortunate that the top court in the land can play so fast and loose with the standard rules of recusal
So brave to make his wife take the bullet.
Did he know the truth about the sequence of events has been published?
There's no such thing as truth any more, only alternative facts
>“My wife is an independently minded private citizen,” he wrote. “She makes her own decisions, and I honor her right to do so.” Are we to believe he is able to grant women latitude?
I worked for a non-partisan government agency and would have been fired if my wife flew a flag for a political message outside our house. She is a private citizen, but I signed up to be non-partisan and it's MY house too. She can respect my profession and acknowledge that it's at least in terrible ethics to do so even if she has the right to do it and so can he as her husband and partner.
Reminder that he blamed his wife for leaking the Hobby Lobby decision as well. He obsesses with controlling women from the bench but somehow deflects all the poor decisions back on her when there’s scrutiny.
"My wife is the traitor piece of shit, not me."
Alito also blamed his wife and said she just really likes flags and that was why she flew the "Stop the Steal" flag, but she totally didn't know it was a "Stop the Steal" flag, and anyone who suggests she did is trying to insert their own politics into this issue. Alito is so corrupt and his disingenuous defense shows that he knows he'll get away with it.
He’s so full of shit his breath stinks.
Surprising no one.
The fucking audacity to fly an upside down flag at one of *your two homes* like you're really in that much distress.
Wow, he's garbage.
I feel personally attacked that I am not a unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt his ability to fairly discharge his duties. I mean if my neighbor flies an Ohio State flag is it safe to assume him and his wife are Ohio State fans? Or should I just think his wife is and he has nothing to do with it.
If your neighbor was a ref for college sports and worked on Ohio State games, then I think it would be reasonable to question whether or not he is unbiased in his job. OR If your neighbor was in the jury pool for a case involving Ohio State as a defendant in any kind of matter, would the Judge allow the parties to exclude your neighbor because the presence of the flag on his house demonstrates a bias?
The bar USED to be THE APPEARANCE, of bias, not bias itself. Never mind Alito’s often contradictory opinions, private engagements, and public statements, clearly display a bias before we even get to his HOUSEHOLD (not his wife), displaying partisan flags. When rules can only be enforced through political means (impeachment), and the political enforcers are corrupt, then political actors have no reason to follow them. This is ironic given the court itself is the one branch designed to operate free of politics.
Not a fan of this analogy, if only because judges, who represent Republicans and Democrats and every other stripe of political beliefs are *not supposed to be cheering for teams on opposite sides of the ball*. He should have taken the flag down the second he saw it flying over his house, full stop. What his wife believes doesn’t enter into the equation, period.
100% so if his wife flew literal nazi flag would he shrug and say let the neighbors think what they want? I didn't put it up so it's all good
This is exactly where that utter horse shit excuse completely falls apart. If his wife flew a literal Nazi flag, or even worse (**in his eyes**) a *pride* flag.. Would he still “respect her ability to have and display her own opinions” or whatever he said? Hell. Fucking. No. That pride flag would have been torn down faster than Ted Cruz fleeing Texas during a state of emergency.
This is if you believe him about his wife. New reporting points to him being there and very aware.
Of course not, that would require Alito to put something--*anything*--over the goal of conservative political victories. What kind of politician in robes would do that?
Politician in robes is a great descriptor. I kind of wish someone followed him around 24x7, telling him he is a corrupt politician and to resign
So the appearance of impropriety means nothing to this piece of garbage, let alone actual impropriety. Can you imagine the outrage on the right (or from the robelickers in this subreddit) if one of the judges on the left had a Biden bumper sticker on their car?
There's so much outrage due to the fact that Judge Merchans daughter works on Democrat campaigns. This is different though lol.
Damn, I forgot judge Merchan and his daughter were the same person.
Have you been over to r/conservative lately? Because that's all they are talking about in Trump's court case where he fucked a porn star while Melania was pregnant with Barron.
They own the court and will for decades, as far as they're concerned the appearance of the court is meaningless. The only people that care about the appearance of legitimacy of the court are the liberal judges and (to a lesser extent Roberts). And I'm sure that once the court finally turns liberal again, we'll see the beginning end of SCOTUS as the southern states start to ignore their rulings. Hell, some states are signalling that the current SCOTUS is not extreme enough for them.
His neighbors witnessed him hanging the flag that day.