The US Supreme Court

[Svartalf]

and 25 years from now the next court will have its work cut out for it.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Justice Samuel Alito flying his true colors and blaming it on his wife. As the article says, there are no surprises here including Alito's lack of discretion. He's given more than one speech in which his status as a right wing Christian culture warrior prick is proudly flaunted.

'The Smallest Justice Who Ever Lived'

[N]obody should be all that surprised by Jodi Kantor’s bombshell reporting on Thursday night about the upside-down flag that hung outside the Alitos’ home in suburban Virginia in the days after the Jan. 6 insurrection. The symbol of support for the attempted coup flew during a time when the court was considering cases seeking to set aside the election results. Alito has confirmed that this flag display happened. Multiple neighbors and Supreme Court employees have corroborated the reporting.

We can certainly quibble (and Alito’s defenders surely will) about whether an upside-down flag really represents “Stop the Steal,” as Kantor’s experts affirm, or some other message of peace and goodwill. We can and will debate over Alito’s claim that his wife hoisted the flag because one of the neighbors hurt their feelings (so, #feminism). But the saddest and most arresting part of this endless downward spiral for the seven jurists who should know better, and the two who do not, is not that they don’t care about what they are doing to the court—it’s how pitifully, shabbily small these ride-or-die political battles really are.

We have known for some time now that the current Supreme Court is not comprised of “conservatives” and “liberals,” or even “jurists” and “reactionaries.” It has split into those who care about the future of the court and the country, and those who do not.

Because the group that cares is much larger than the one that doesn’t, its members could have at any time done many things to signal to the latter group —and we can go ahead and name them, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—that accepting lavish, undisclosed gifts and vacations from billionaire donors who have interests before the court was a rolling, public-confidence-and-democracy-threatening disaster. They said nothing, even as this sordid conduct degraded the nation’s highest court, for many of the reasons powerful individuals often say nothing: To protect the institution at large; to preserve the long-tarnished myth of a collegial court; and because, when there is nothing to be done about it anyhow, what’s the point?

Every one of the Supreme Court’s nine justices is well aware of the recusal statute that binds federal judges and the ethics code that, even in 2021, they purported to consult and follow. Even then, before SCOTUS produced its own totally voluntary, never-say-never ethical guidelines in 2023, internal policy and external law required them to refrain from acting like thin-skinned partisan nuts, and to recuse themselves from relevant cases when they failed to adhere to this standard.

This is a low bar to clear. And yet, in statements to the New York Times and Fox News’ Shannon Bream, Alito implied that he and his wife, Martha-Ann, simply had no choice but to disrespect the stars and stripes by vulgarly violating the U.S. Flag Code because it was necessary to own a liberal neighbor. The justice told Bream that this neighbor put up a “Fuck Trump” sign—where children might see it!—and then another sign “personally” blaming Martha-Ann for Jan. 6. Finally, “a male in the home” called Martha-Ann “the c-word” while she was on a walk with her husband. All this led her to join countless “Stop the Steal” enthusiasts in hanging her American flag upside down.

At the time, this act was associated with fringe-right, QAnon-style conspiracy theorists who supported Trump’s failed coup and dismissed Fox News as too squishy.

None of the Alitos’ explanations so far even attempt to explain why Martha-Ann landed on this gesture, out of all the possibilities, to further upset and provoke her progressive neighbors. Readers are also left to guess at the true origin of the conflict; are we really supposed to think that the neighbors picked this fight unprovoked, and the Alitos are completely blameless? The justice’s defenders are scrambling to muddy the waters with some alternate explanation, but the truth is crystal clear, and unrefuted by the Alitos themselves: That flag was hung upside down to piss off some libs. At best, Martha-Ann Alito was trolling her neighbor by professing a militant belief that Biden stole the election; at worst, she held that belief sincerely.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Wrapping themselves in the flag and braying about 'freedom,' it's clear that for the right in the US (including the black-robed shits on the bench of the Supreme Court) the agenda is in fact rather contrary to the ideals they make so much noise about.

'"Going for the Jugular": Legal Scholar Warns "Trumpers" Want to End Major Civil Right'

One of the nation’s top constitutional scholars has issued a strong warning that the GOP will be working to overturn one of the most consequential, landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions in modern American history. Griswold v. Connecticut established the precedent for the right to privacy, laying the foundation for the right to contraception, abortion, same-sex intimate relationships, and same-sex marriage.

Two years ago next month, the right-wing justices on the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which for nearly 50 years had established the constitutional right to abortion. In his concurring opinion, embattled Justice Clarence Thomas issued a call for cases to be brought before the nation’s highest court, declaring that rulings that had also established the rights to contraception and same-sex marriage were, in his opinion, wrongly-decided. Justice Thomas declared the Court “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” — making clear he wanted the Court to overturn those rulings, and by doing so, strike down the constitutional rights to contraception, same-sex intimacy, and same-sex marriage.

...

University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University, Laurence Tribe, a professor of law and top constitutional scholar who wrote a major textbook on the U.S. Constitution, responded to the Biden campaign’s post featuring Sen. Blackburn by blasting “Trumpers,” the MAGA Republicans.

“The Trumpers are now going for the jugular in attacking the great 1965 precedent on which nearly all federal rights of privacy and personal autonomy depend, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, upholding the right to use contraceptives when having sexual relations,” Professor Tribe warned.

Obligatory mention of Thomas's blatant self-interest: When he attacks substantive due process he never includes Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws banning inter-racial marriage on the same substantive due process basis as the rulings he despises. He's in an inter-racial marriage himself, of course.

[Brian Peacock]

Gold-digger is not a race.

But of course, Thomas et al only pass judgements that are binding on others - they are literally above the law; they give law, not take it.

[Tero]

With just a few special people in the Constitution (The president, senators), Ketanji Brons set her team to look for "the people" in the Constitution. Even Alito found a few, according to our tradition. They must be somewhere!
https://karireport.blogspot.com/2022/11 ... eople.html

[rasetsu]

Samuel Alito's claims that his wife flew an upside-down U.S. flag outside their home in response to a clash with neighbors has been brought into question.

The Supreme Court Justice came under fire earlier this month following reports that the inverted flag was flown from his house in January 2021 after it had become the symbol of the "Stop the Steal" campaign, which aimed to overturn Joe Biden's 2020 election win.

Justice Alito told The New York Times that he had "no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag," saying his wife "briefly" put up the inverted flag "in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs."

Martha-Ann Alito, Justice Alito's wife, reportedly hung the flag upside down after she was "distraught" over words exchanged with her neighbors, including vulgar insults such as "the c-word", according to Fox News journalist Shannon Bream.

But now, The New York Times has reported that this name-calling took place on February 15, weeks after the flag was taken down. This is according to the newspaper's analysis of a text message and an original police call, corroborated by Fairfax County authorities.

https://www.newsweek.com/samuel-alito-f ... rt-1905691

[Tero]

Alito is going to pull out the Magna Carta and explain that although citizens have certain rights, anything the king gets away with can't be taken to court.

[Brian Peacock]

Samuel Alito's claims that his wife flew an upside-down U.S. flag outside their home in response to a clash with neighbors has been brought into question.

The Supreme Court Justice came under fire earlier this month following reports that the inverted flag was flown from his house in January 2021 after it had become the symbol of the "Stop the Steal" campaign, which aimed to overturn Joe Biden's 2020 election win.

Justice Alito told The New York Times that he had "no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag," saying his wife "briefly" put up the inverted flag "in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs."

Martha-Ann Alito, Justice Alito's wife, reportedly hung the flag upside down after she was "distraught" over words exchanged with her neighbors, including vulgar insults such as "the c-word", according to Fox News journalist Shannon Bream.

But now, The New York Times has reported that this name-calling took place on February 15, weeks after the flag was taken down. This is according to the newspaper's analysis of a text message and an original police call, corroborated by Fairfax County authorities.

https://www.newsweek.com/samuel-alito-f ... rt-1905691

So just for lols and lib tears.

[Svartalf]

should be kicked from the court and sent to gitmo for antipatriotic behavior unbecoming of his station

[Sean Hayden]

Or used as an example to help youths more quickly understand their leaders aren’t special.

[Tero]

Thomas thinks man should always have AR15 on hand to keep his woman in line. Others (8) disagree.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/21/politics ... index.html

[L'Emmerdeur]

This has been circulating for a couple of weeks at least, but I think it should still be memorialized in this thread.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Coincidence, surely ...

'"Absurd and atextual": Ketanji Brown dissents over Supreme Court gutting of anti-corruption law'

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday to weaken a federal statute that guards against public corruption, a reading that Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson said “only today’s court could love.”

In a 6-3 ruling by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the conservative supermajority sided with James Snyder, the former mayor of Portage, Indiana who accepted an alleged bribe of $13,000 in exchange for a towing contract. Snyder argued the exchange was an “after-the-fact gratuity,” not a bribe, CNN reported.

The law in question makes it a federal crime to “corruptly accept anything valued above $5,000," monetary or not.

The Supreme Court's ruling means that local officials may now legally accept de-facto bribes if they come in the form of gratuities. All three liberal justices dissented.

“The Government’s interpretation of the statute would create traps for unwary state and local officials,” Kavanaugh argued.

Jackson, by contrast, said that the law honors “Congress’ intent to punish rewards corruptly accepted by government officials in ways that are functionally indistinguishable from taking a bribe.” She also called the court’s reading of the law “absurd and atextual.”

“I respectfully dissent,” she concluded.

[Brian Peacock]

What's our constitutional expert's views on the 6-3 ruling in the case of Fischer v United States?

[Svartalf]

post hoc, ergo propter hoc, after the fact gratuities should be even more illegal than before the fact bribes