So Alito can't tell his wife not to fly offensive flags. But he can tell women how they must take care of their healthcare needs?
this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
229 points (99.6% liked)
politics
18883 readers
3345 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Given he's a republican it's equally likely he's lying and was the one that instructed her to fly them or even did it himself.
You’re usually not wrong assuming it’s projection
Alito is either a traitor or too stupid to recognize what would make him appear to be a traitor. In either case, unfit to serve in any office, let alone sit on SCOTUS.
if there are no teeth in the apparatus to remove him, it doesnt matter what it looks like.
the corrupt congress has led to a corrupt supreme court.
That's not entirely fair, there's a lot more the executive branch could be doing to try to fix this too
Of course, Justices Alito and Thomas could choose to recuse themselves — wouldn’t that be nice? But begging them to do the right thing misses a far more effective course of action.
The U.S. Department of Justice — including the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, an appointed U.S. special counsel and the solicitor general, all of whom were involved in different ways in the criminal prosecutions underlying these cases and are opposing Mr. Trump’s constitutional and statutory claims — can petition the other seven justices to require Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves not as a matter of grace but as a matter of law.
The Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland can invoke two powerful textual authorities for this motion: the Constitution of the United States, specifically the due process clause, and the federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality, 28 U.S.C. Section 455. The Constitution has come into play in several recent Supreme Court decisions striking down rulings by stubborn judges in lower courts whose political impartiality has been reasonably questioned but who threw caution to the wind to hear a case anyway. This statute requires potentially biased judges throughout the federal system to recuse themselves at the start of the process to avoid judicial unfairness and embarrassing controversies and reversals.
boom, so both branches are complicit. got it.
Yep, but I don't know if they're complicit because they genuinely like the way things are heading or complicit because they worry if they push back at all our society could totally break down into factions and they're not sure which side the cops and soldiers will choose, and those are two very different reasons for going along with things
Also, regardless of all of this - just by virtue of the fact that the Democratic party at the very least has to keep up the appearance of opposing the Republicans, we're all a lot better off with them winning elections, so I do recommend voting for them whenever you get the chance, just realize that's only step 1
e; words is hard sometimes
agreed. the people yelling 'both sides' are ignoring the fact that only one side has been actively interfering with peoples ability to vote for decades now.. you may not like the democrats, but at least they arent attempting to remove your ability to vote
Let’s be perfectly clear here: Mitch McConnell has led to a corrupt SCOTUS, not Congress.
congress could remove alito today, if they wanted.
so, why havent they? oh yeah, a huge percent of them are his corrupt allies.
annnnnnd its well known that mcconnel was just the front man taking the heat for our shitty congress . he wasnt working alone, in a vacuum. he took the brunt of the bad because there are so many incredibly stupid people in the his home state as to make he re-election a given.
You're using the word "Congress" to refer to Congressional Republicans, and it's disingenuous.
naw. i meant what i said. dems are complicit here.
hell, the if dems had any testicles they would remove the filibuster and get on with actual governing.
hell, the if dems had any testicles they would remove the filibuster and get on with actual governing.
They did... That's why McConnell was able to get the current picks in. SCOTUS picks just need a simple majority in the Senate.
Dems removed filibuster for all appointment except scotus in 2013 then R’s removed for scotus in 2017. Now republicans could have done it anyway on 2017 even without precedent, and Democrats could have forced merick garland in if they had gone fully nuclear. I’d call it equally shared
He's a supreme Court justice, he doesn't get to play the stupid card.
the only method to prevent him from playing the stupid card would take a coordinated effort from congress, who have proven themselves non-coordinate-able
Did anyone expect anything different? Motherfucker is the one flying the flag of insurrection. Why would he voluntarily abandon the power he has?
No shit he won't. It's a great opportunity for him to express his political power.
"activist judge"
Well then, it’s time to start impeachment proceedings. I know we wouldn’t actually succeed at impeaching him, but it’s still a fight worth having. As of now, only a few dems have spoken out about this with any passion or substance. Their lack of urgency is incredibly frustrating.
They can’t use the “impeachment would be a partisan issue” excuse. It’s nonpartisan to want our Supreme Court to be nonpartisan.
You can’t win a fight if you never start it.
Impeachment would need to start in the House, which has a Republican majority. If they had any honor, they'd move to impeach, but they don't.
Dems can make noise about it, but Mike Johnson ain’t bringing that to the floor. People need to vote in more Dems in the house while also holding the senate and the executive.
ok, now impeach him
Impeachment has to start in the House, where Republicans hold a majority. They don't have enough honor or integrity to do that.
Using the word 'enough' suggests they have some level of honor or integrity.