SCOTUS

[Seacoaster(1)]

This absurd Alito flag faux controversy is ridiculous.
What happened to respecting a woman's (wife's) independence & opinion ?
The beach house flying the tree flag was purchased by his wife with money she inherited.
What was Alito supposed to do, threaten to move out ? ...nice neighbors.
Compare Alito's grounds for recusal to Merchan's.
How long before Stanford is pressured to remove the tree from their logo ?

Deliberately missing the point of the issue. Nice work.

[cradleandshoot]

This absurd Alito flag faux controversy is ridiculous.
What happened to respecting a woman's (wife's) independence & opinion ?
The beach house flying the tree flag was purchased by his wife with money she inherited.
What was Alito supposed to do, threaten to move out ? ...nice neighbors.
Compare Alito's grounds for recusal to Merchan's.
How long before Stanford is pressured to remove the tree from their logo ?

Deliberately missing the point of the issue. Nice work.

So if Justice Jackson chose to fly a BLM flag in front of her house that would be grounds for her to recuse herself of any case that might involve WNC?? Old Salt understands the repercussions of what some of you are demanding. What is troubling to me is as a lawyer of many decades of experience your political bias is superceding your respect for the constitution. That truly is deplorable. What other of our constitutional rights are you willing to abrogate to the prevailing political winds?

[youthathletics]

This absurd Alito flag faux controversy is ridiculous.
What happened to respecting a woman's (wife's) independence & opinion ?
The beach house flying the tree flag was purchased by his wife with money she inherited.
What was Alito supposed to do, threaten to move out ? ...nice neighbors.
Compare Alito's grounds for recusal to Merchan's.
How long before Stanford is pressured to remove the tree from their logo ?

Deliberately missing the point of the issue. Nice work.

So if Justice Jackson chose to fly a BLM flag in front of her house that would be grounds for her to recuse herself of any case that might involve WNC?? Old Salt understands the repercussions of what some of you are demanding. What is troubling to me is as a lawyer of many decades of experience your political bias is superceding your respect for the constitution. That truly is deplorable. What other of our constitutional rights are you willing to abrogate to the prevailing political winds?

The point, is to fall into line, cradle. Outside of that, you are the enemy.

[cradleandshoot]

This absurd Alito flag faux controversy is ridiculous.
What happened to respecting a woman's (wife's) independence & opinion ?
The beach house flying the tree flag was purchased by his wife with money she inherited.
What was Alito supposed to do, threaten to move out ? ...nice neighbors.
Compare Alito's grounds for recusal to Merchan's.
How long before Stanford is pressured to remove the tree from their logo ?

Deliberately missing the point of the issue. Nice work.

So if Justice Jackson chose to fly a BLM flag in front of her house that would be grounds for her to recuse herself of any case that might involve WNC?? Old Salt understands the repercussions of what some of you are demanding. What is troubling to me is as a lawyer of many decades of experience your political bias is superceding your respect for the constitution. That truly is deplorable. What other of our constitutional rights are you willing to abrogate to the prevailing political winds?

The point, is to fall into line, cradle. Outside of that, you are the enemy.

I'm the enemy that will fly whatever flag I want to in front of my house. I could not be more proud of Justice Alito for telling all of his critics and haters to go pound sand. I'm still waiting for some of the legal eagles on this forum to post the acceptable list of flags a SCOTUS justice can fly without incurring their wrath? The sad thing is our forum legal eagles know they are dead wrong. They are unable to separate their personal opinion from what they know is protected by that pesky US Constitution. If only they could get their grubby mitts on that outdated document.
FTR the January 6 protesters also flew American flags. So using liberal logic the US flag flying over Alitos house would also be reason for demanding Alito recuse himself. What is really interesting to me is so many of these intolerant, angry liberals are oblivious as to how ridiculous they look. Of course looking stupid is becoming the new norm for them.

[Seacoaster(1)]

This absurd Alito flag faux controversy is ridiculous.
What happened to respecting a woman's (wife's) independence & opinion ?
The beach house flying the tree flag was purchased by his wife with money she inherited.
What was Alito supposed to do, threaten to move out ? ...nice neighbors.
Compare Alito's grounds for recusal to Merchan's.
How long before Stanford is pressured to remove the tree from their logo ?

Deliberately missing the point of the issue. Nice work.

So if Justice Jackson chose to fly a BLM flag in front of her house that would be grounds for her to recuse herself of any case that might involve WNC?? Old Salt understands the repercussions of what some of you are demanding. What is troubling to me is as a lawyer of many decades of experience your political bias is superceding your respect for the constitution. That truly is deplorable. What other of our constitutional rights are you willing to abrogate to the prevailing political winds?

I'll try to respond, as if you welcomed any discussion. YA's comment is too stupid for any real rejoinder.

If Justice Jackson flew a BLM flag outside of her private residence, and there were a case or cases before the Court that involved BLM liability or which placed in issue BLM's conduct or activities, then I would say she should recuse herself from them. If her husband flew them outside their shared home, I'd say the same thing.

I don't think my political bias is at work here. I am doubtful you will believe this, but my bias in favor of a well-respected Supreme Court, one whose institutional integrity, relative impartiality and trustworthiness is not questioned, is the issue here. When Judge Alito accepted this job and became Justice Alito -- and one of only nine people occupying a seat on this most powerful tribunal -- he accepted some responsibility for the Court's place in American government, the separation of powers, and the public's trust in the institution.

So the flags: the flags were flown (not a quiet opinion at dinner with friends) by a senior government official, one of whose family members hoisted the banner of a violent insurrectionist movement devoted to overturning a core constitutional principle. At least millions of citizens do, in fact, see the flag flying this way. The perceptions that the flags allow are damaging to the Court. Federal judges are required to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” There is simply no question that Alito has breached these rules, by permitting the flags to be associated with him, by permitting them to fly in front of his home, and, I guess, by not telling his spouse something akin to "I understand what you are saying and even agree with it; but we cannot fly these given my peculiar and particular position in American society and government."

In this most recent term of the Court, it has considered or has under consideration three major cases that go straight to the misconduct that marked January 6, and the so-called “Stop the Steal” effort. Alito has already joined the majority in rejecting Colorado’s effort to keep Trump off the ballot because he had engaged in an insurrection. The Court is still considering a challenge to the use of federal criminal law that, if decided one way, could negate the convictions of 350 insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol. And Alito is sitting on the former President's assertion of immunity when he and others asked Georgia officials to find him some votes, and when he oversaw and helped to orchestrate fake electors frauds in several states. A wise man without years of unfettered hubris to guide him (or a desire to weigh in on these important issues as a partisan?) would politely recuse -- as Kavanaugh did recently in another case.

For the record, I am pretty skeptical about the "my wife did it" story. But even if that is the case, spouses of government officials -- particularly one so conspicuous, so unique, and so important in our system of checked and balanced powers -- have to accept modest inroads on their ability to speak exactly as one wants, all the time. This isn't an "abrogation of their constitutional rights;" it is recognition that they and their spouses do a peculiarly important job in the government system, and one that prizes impartiality and the appearance of impartiality above other everyday interests.

I revere the constitutional system, and revere the judicial branch in particular, having been a participant in its workings and among its judges and clerks and staff for over 35 years. It is based, like a lot of things, on some measure of trust, and is therefore something of a fragile thing. If Justices and their spouses and housemates want to take a public position on an issue in their neighborhood, they should have the awareness and intelligence to understand that that position-taking should remove them from consideration of someone's case and the litigant's expectation of impartiality.

[Typical Lax Dad]

This absurd Alito flag faux controversy is ridiculous.
What happened to respecting a woman's (wife's) independence & opinion ?
The beach house flying the tree flag was purchased by his wife with money she inherited.
What was Alito supposed to do, threaten to move out ? ...nice neighbors.
Compare Alito's grounds for recusal to Merchan's.
How long before Stanford is pressured to remove the tree from their logo ?

Deliberately missing the point of the issue. Nice work.

So if Justice Jackson chose to fly a BLM flag in front of her house that would be grounds for her to recuse herself of any case that might involve WNC?? Old Salt understands the repercussions of what some of you are demanding. What is troubling to me is as a lawyer of many decades of experience your political bias is superceding your respect for the constitution. That truly is deplorable. What other of our constitutional rights are you willing to abrogate to the prevailing political winds?

I'll try to respond, as if you welcomed any discussion. YA's comment is too stupid for any real rejoinder.

If Justice Jackson flew a BLM flag outside of her private residence, and there were a case or cases before the Court that involved BLM liability or which placed in issue BLM's conduct or activities, then I would say she should recuse herself from them. If her husband flew them outside their shared home, I'd say the same thing.

I don't think my political bias is at work here. I am doubtful you will believe this, but my bias in favor of a well-respected Supreme Court, one whose institutional integrity, relative impartiality and trustworthiness is not questioned, is the issue here. When Judge Alito accepted this job and became Justice Alito -- and one of only nine people occupying a seat on this most powerful tribunal -- he accepted some responsibility for the Court's place in American government, the separation of powers, and the public's trust in the institution.

So the flags: the flags were flown (not a quiet opinion at dinner with friends) by a senior government official, one of whose family members hoisted the banner of a violent insurrectionist movement devoted to overturning a core constitutional principle. At least millions of citizens do, in fact, see the flag flying this way. The perceptions that the flags allow are damaging to the Court. Federal judges are required to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” There is simply no question that Alito has breached these rules, by permitting the flags to be associated with him, by permitting them to fly in front of his home, and, I guess, by not telling his spouse something akin to "I understand what you are saying and even agree with it; but we cannot fly these given my peculiar and particular position in American society and government."

In this most recent term of the Court, it has considered or has under consideration three major cases that go straight to the misconduct that marked January 6, and the so-called “Stop the Steal” effort. Alito has already joined the majority in rejecting Colorado’s effort to keep Trump off the ballot because he had engaged in an insurrection. The Court is still considering a challenge to the use of federal criminal law that, if decided one way, could negate the convictions of 350 insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol. And Alito is sitting on the former President's assertion of immunity when he and others asked Georgia officials to find him some votes, and when he oversaw and helped to orchestrate fake electors frauds in several states. A wise man without years of unfettered hubris to guide him (or a desire to weigh in on these important issues as a partisan?) would politely recuse -- as Kavanaugh did recently in another case.

For the record, I am pretty skeptical about the "my wife did it" story. But even if that is the case, spouses of government officials -- particularly one so conspicuous, so unique, and so important in our system of checked and balanced powers -- have to accept modest inroads on their ability to speak exactly as one wants, all the time. This isn't an "abrogation of their constitutional rights;" it is recognition that they and their spouses do a peculiarly important job in the government system, and one that prizes impartiality and the appearance of impartiality above other everyday interests.

I revere the constitutional system, and revere the judicial branch in particular, having been a participant in its workings and among its judges and clerks and staff for over 35 years. It is based, like a lot of things, on some measure of trust, and is therefore something of a fragile thing. If Justices and their spouses and housemates want to take a public position on an issue in their neighborhood, they should have the awareness and intelligence to understand that that position-taking should remove them from consideration of someone's case and the litigant's expectation of impartiality.

Really incredible what we are witnessing. Clarence Thomas and his wife are just as shameless. People have been fired from private enterprises for similar actions.

[cradleandshoot]

This absurd Alito flag faux controversy is ridiculous.
What happened to respecting a woman's (wife's) independence & opinion ?
The beach house flying the tree flag was purchased by his wife with money she inherited.
What was Alito supposed to do, threaten to move out ? ...nice neighbors.
Compare Alito's grounds for recusal to Merchan's.
How long before Stanford is pressured to remove the tree from their logo ?

Deliberately missing the point of the issue. Nice work.

So if Justice Jackson chose to fly a BLM flag in front of her house that would be grounds for her to recuse herself of any case that might involve WNC?? Old Salt understands the repercussions of what some of you are demanding. What is troubling to me is as a lawyer of many decades of experience your political bias is superceding your respect for the constitution. That truly is deplorable. What other of our constitutional rights are you willing to abrogate to the prevailing political winds?

I'll try to respond, as if you welcomed any discussion. YA's comment is too stupid for any real rejoinder.

If Justice Jackson flew a BLM flag outside of her private residence, and there were a case or cases before the Court that involved BLM liability or which placed in issue BLM's conduct or activities, then I would say she should recuse herself from them. If her husband flew them outside their shared home, I'd say the same thing.

I don't think my political bias is at work here. I am doubtful you will believe this, but my bias in favor of a well-respected Supreme Court, one whose institutional integrity, relative impartiality and trustworthiness is not questioned, is the issue here. When Judge Alito accepted this job and became Justice Alito -- and one of only nine people occupying a seat on this most powerful tribunal -- he accepted some responsibility for the Court's place in American government, the separation of powers, and the public's trust in the institution.

So the flags: the flags were flown (not a quiet opinion at dinner with friends) by a senior government official, one of whose family members hoisted the banner of a violent insurrectionist movement devoted to overturning a core constitutional principle. At least millions of citizens do, in fact, see the flag flying this way. The perceptions that the flags allow are damaging to the Court. Federal judges are required to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” There is simply no question that Alito has breached these rules, by permitting the flags to be associated with him, by permitting them to fly in front of his home, and, I guess, by not telling his spouse something akin to "I understand what you are saying and even agree with it; but we cannot fly these given my peculiar and particular position in American society and government."

In this most recent term of the Court, it has considered or has under consideration three major cases that go straight to the misconduct that marked January 6, and the so-called “Stop the Steal” effort. Alito has already joined the majority in rejecting Colorado’s effort to keep Trump off the ballot because he had engaged in an insurrection. The Court is still considering a challenge to the use of federal criminal law that, if decided one way, could negate the convictions of 350 insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol. And Alito is sitting on the former President's assertion of immunity when he and others asked Georgia officials to find him some votes, and when he oversaw and helped to orchestrate fake electors frauds in several states. A wise man without years of unfettered hubris to guide him (or a desire to weigh in on these important issues as a partisan?) would politely recuse -- as Kavanaugh did recently in another case.

For the record, I am pretty skeptical about the "my wife did it" story. But even if that is the case, spouses of government officials -- particularly one so conspicuous, so unique, and so important in our system of checked and balanced powers -- have to accept modest inroads on their ability to speak exactly as one wants, all the time. This isn't an "abrogation of their constitutional rights;" it is recognition that they and their spouses do a peculiarly important job in the government system, and one that prizes impartiality and the appearance of impartiality above other everyday interests.

I revere the constitutional system, and revere the judicial branch in particular, having been a participant in its workings and among its judges and clerks and staff for over 35 years. It is based, like a lot of things, on some measure of trust, and is therefore something of a fragile thing. If Justices and their spouses and housemates want to take a public position on an issue in their neighborhood, they should have the awareness and intelligence to understand that that position-taking should remove them from consideration of someone's case and the litigant's expectation of impartiality.

So what you are trying to tell me counselor, and I do appreciate you and I do respect your opinion although I disagree with vehemently on this. I'm sure your familiar with the 1st amendment. You may have read about it many years ago when you were in law school. Correct me if I'm wrong because I believe it says something about freedom of speech. That is the same 1st amendment that protects your right to publicly burn the American flag in public protest. Yet that same 1st amendment right does not carry over to Justice Alito and his wife in your opinion. If you revere the Constitution counselor then act like it. Unless your legal experience has given you knowledge of some controlling legal authority that Denied Justice Alito and his wife the same constitutional rights that you claim you revere. I may be getting the details wrong but wasn't it John Adams that defended the British soldiers that no one else would touch. You might dislike justice Alito and his legal temperament but both you and he are obligated to defend the constitution.

[a fan]

This absurd Alito flag faux controversy is ridiculous.
What happened to respecting a woman's (wife's) independence & opinion ?
The beach house flying the tree flag was purchased by his wife with money she inherited.
What was Alito supposed to do, threaten to move out ? ...nice neighbors.
Compare Alito's grounds for recusal to Merchan's.
How long before Stanford is pressured to remove the tree from their logo ?

Deliberately missing the point of the issue. Nice work.

So if Justice Jackson chose to fly a BLM flag in front of her house that would be grounds for her to recuse herself of any case that might involve WNC?? Old Salt understands the repercussions of what some of you are demanding. What is troubling to me is as a lawyer of many decades of experience your political bias is superceding your respect for the constitution. That truly is deplorable. What other of our constitutional rights are you willing to abrogate to the prevailing political winds?

I'll try to respond, as if you welcomed any discussion. YA's comment is too stupid for any real rejoinder.

If Justice Jackson flew a BLM flag outside of her private residence, and there were a case or cases before the Court that involved BLM liability or which placed in issue BLM's conduct or activities, then I would say she should recuse herself from them. If her husband flew them outside their shared home, I'd say the same thing.

I don't think my political bias is at work here. I am doubtful you will believe this, but my bias in favor of a well-respected Supreme Court, one whose institutional integrity, relative impartiality and trustworthiness is not questioned, is the issue here. When Judge Alito accepted this job and became Justice Alito -- and one of only nine people occupying a seat on this most powerful tribunal -- he accepted some responsibility for the Court's place in American government, the separation of powers, and the public's trust in the institution.

So the flags: the flags were flown (not a quiet opinion at dinner with friends) by a senior government official, one of whose family members hoisted the banner of a violent insurrectionist movement devoted to overturning a core constitutional principle. At least millions of citizens do, in fact, see the flag flying this way. The perceptions that the flags allow are damaging to the Court. Federal judges are required to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” There is simply no question that Alito has breached these rules, by permitting the flags to be associated with him, by permitting them to fly in front of his home, and, I guess, by not telling his spouse something akin to "I understand what you are saying and even agree with it; but we cannot fly these given my peculiar and particular position in American society and government."

In this most recent term of the Court, it has considered or has under consideration three major cases that go straight to the misconduct that marked January 6, and the so-called “Stop the Steal” effort. Alito has already joined the majority in rejecting Colorado’s effort to keep Trump off the ballot because he had engaged in an insurrection. The Court is still considering a challenge to the use of federal criminal law that, if decided one way, could negate the convictions of 350 insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol. And Alito is sitting on the former President's assertion of immunity when he and others asked Georgia officials to find him some votes, and when he oversaw and helped to orchestrate fake electors frauds in several states. A wise man without years of unfettered hubris to guide him (or a desire to weigh in on these important issues as a partisan?) would politely recuse -- as Kavanaugh did recently in another case.

For the record, I am pretty skeptical about the "my wife did it" story. But even if that is the case, spouses of government officials -- particularly one so conspicuous, so unique, and so important in our system of checked and balanced powers -- have to accept modest inroads on their ability to speak exactly as one wants, all the time. This isn't an "abrogation of their constitutional rights;" it is recognition that they and their spouses do a peculiarly important job in the government system, and one that prizes impartiality and the appearance of impartiality above other everyday interests.

I revere the constitutional system, and revere the judicial branch in particular, having been a participant in its workings and among its judges and clerks and staff for over 35 years. It is based, like a lot of things, on some measure of trust, and is therefore something of a fragile thing. If Justices and their spouses and housemates want to take a public position on an issue in their neighborhood, they should have the awareness and intelligence to understand that that position-taking should remove them from consideration of someone's case and the litigant's expectation of impartiality.

So what you are trying to tell me counselor, and I do appreciate you and I do respect your opinion although I disagree with vehemently on this. I'm sure your familiar with the 1st amendment. You may have read about it many years ago when you were in law school. Correct me if I'm wrong because I believe it says something about freedom of speech. That is the same 1st amendment that protects your right to publicly burn the American flag in public protest. Yet that same 1st amendment right does not carry over to Justice Alito and his wife in your opinion. If you revere the Constitution counselor then act like it. Unless your legal experience has given you knowledge of some controlling legal authority that Denied Justice Alito and his wife the same constitutional rights that you claim you revere. I may be getting the details wrong but wasn't it John Adams that defended the British soldiers that no one else would touch. You might dislike justice Alito and his legal temperament but both you and he are obligated to defend the constitution.

Anyone here remember what happened when we found PRIVATE texts that showed that the FBI agents investigating Trump....hated Trump? An

You guys remember that the reaction of folks posting here was the precise opposite of what we see here when we're dealing with Republican Justices?


BTW, Strozk and Page sued the FBI for invasion of privacy, and just settled the suit this week with the DoJ. They, like cradle is here, argued First Amendment protection.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-re ... xt-scandal

[PizzaSnake]

This absurd Alito flag faux controversy is ridiculous.
What happened to respecting a woman's (wife's) independence & opinion ?
The beach house flying the tree flag was purchased by his wife with money she inherited.
What was Alito supposed to do, threaten to move out ? ...nice neighbors.
Compare Alito's grounds for recusal to Merchan's.
How long before Stanford is pressured to remove the tree from their logo ?

Deliberately missing the point of the issue. Nice work.

So if Justice Jackson chose to fly a BLM flag in front of her house that would be grounds for her to recuse herself of any case that might involve WNC?? Old Salt understands the repercussions of what some of you are demanding. What is troubling to me is as a lawyer of many decades of experience your political bias is superceding your respect for the constitution. That truly is deplorable. What other of our constitutional rights are you willing to abrogate to the prevailing political winds?

I'll try to respond, as if you welcomed any discussion. YA's comment is too stupid for any real rejoinder.

If Justice Jackson flew a BLM flag outside of her private residence, and there were a case or cases before the Court that involved BLM liability or which placed in issue BLM's conduct or activities, then I would say she should recuse herself from them. If her husband flew them outside their shared home, I'd say the same thing.

I don't think my political bias is at work here. I am doubtful you will believe this, but my bias in favor of a well-respected Supreme Court, one whose institutional integrity, relative impartiality and trustworthiness is not questioned, is the issue here. When Judge Alito accepted this job and became Justice Alito -- and one of only nine people occupying a seat on this most powerful tribunal -- he accepted some responsibility for the Court's place in American government, the separation of powers, and the public's trust in the institution.

So the flags: the flags were flown (not a quiet opinion at dinner with friends) by a senior government official, one of whose family members hoisted the banner of a violent insurrectionist movement devoted to overturning a core constitutional principle. At least millions of citizens do, in fact, see the flag flying this way. The perceptions that the flags allow are damaging to the Court. Federal judges are required to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” There is simply no question that Alito has breached these rules, by permitting the flags to be associated with him, by permitting them to fly in front of his home, and, I guess, by not telling his spouse something akin to "I understand what you are saying and even agree with it; but we cannot fly these given my peculiar and particular position in American society and government."

In this most recent term of the Court, it has considered or has under consideration three major cases that go straight to the misconduct that marked January 6, and the so-called “Stop the Steal” effort. Alito has already joined the majority in rejecting Colorado’s effort to keep Trump off the ballot because he had engaged in an insurrection. The Court is still considering a challenge to the use of federal criminal law that, if decided one way, could negate the convictions of 350 insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol. And Alito is sitting on the former President's assertion of immunity when he and others asked Georgia officials to find him some votes, and when he oversaw and helped to orchestrate fake electors frauds in several states. A wise man without years of unfettered hubris to guide him (or a desire to weigh in on these important issues as a partisan?) would politely recuse -- as Kavanaugh did recently in another case.

For the record, I am pretty skeptical about the "my wife did it" story. But even if that is the case, spouses of government officials -- particularly one so conspicuous, so unique, and so important in our system of checked and balanced powers -- have to accept modest inroads on their ability to speak exactly as one wants, all the time. This isn't an "abrogation of their constitutional rights;" it is recognition that they and their spouses do a peculiarly important job in the government system, and one that prizes impartiality and the appearance of impartiality above other everyday interests.

I revere the constitutional system, and revere the judicial branch in particular, having been a participant in its workings and among its judges and clerks and staff for over 35 years. It is based, like a lot of things, on some measure of trust, and is therefore something of a fragile thing. If Justices and their spouses and housemates want to take a public position on an issue in their neighborhood, they should have the awareness and intelligence to understand that that position-taking should remove them from consideration of someone's case and the litigant's expectation of impartiality.

It is, like most human communal activities, entirely based on trust. Absent a coercive police state, it is how civil order is maintained. One glaring example if this is the relative “lawfulness” of a group or area in relationship to their “investment in” and participation in the civil order and its attendant economic benefits.

[Seacoaster(1)]

This absurd Alito flag faux controversy is ridiculous.
What happened to respecting a woman's (wife's) independence & opinion ?
The beach house flying the tree flag was purchased by his wife with money she inherited.
What was Alito supposed to do, threaten to move out ? ...nice neighbors.
Compare Alito's grounds for recusal to Merchan's.
How long before Stanford is pressured to remove the tree from their logo ?

Deliberately missing the point of the issue. Nice work.

So if Justice Jackson chose to fly a BLM flag in front of her house that would be grounds for her to recuse herself of any case that might involve WNC?? Old Salt understands the repercussions of what some of you are demanding. What is troubling to me is as a lawyer of many decades of experience your political bias is superceding your respect for the constitution. That truly is deplorable. What other of our constitutional rights are you willing to abrogate to the prevailing political winds?

I'll try to respond, as if you welcomed any discussion. YA's comment is too stupid for any real rejoinder.

If Justice Jackson flew a BLM flag outside of her private residence, and there were a case or cases before the Court that involved BLM liability or which placed in issue BLM's conduct or activities, then I would say she should recuse herself from them. If her husband flew them outside their shared home, I'd say the same thing.

I don't think my political bias is at work here. I am doubtful you will believe this, but my bias in favor of a well-respected Supreme Court, one whose institutional integrity, relative impartiality and trustworthiness is not questioned, is the issue here. When Judge Alito accepted this job and became Justice Alito -- and one of only nine people occupying a seat on this most powerful tribunal -- he accepted some responsibility for the Court's place in American government, the separation of powers, and the public's trust in the institution.

So the flags: the flags were flown (not a quiet opinion at dinner with friends) by a senior government official, one of whose family members hoisted the banner of a violent insurrectionist movement devoted to overturning a core constitutional principle. At least millions of citizens do, in fact, see the flag flying this way. The perceptions that the flags allow are damaging to the Court. Federal judges are required to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” There is simply no question that Alito has breached these rules, by permitting the flags to be associated with him, by permitting them to fly in front of his home, and, I guess, by not telling his spouse something akin to "I understand what you are saying and even agree with it; but we cannot fly these given my peculiar and particular position in American society and government."

In this most recent term of the Court, it has considered or has under consideration three major cases that go straight to the misconduct that marked January 6, and the so-called “Stop the Steal” effort. Alito has already joined the majority in rejecting Colorado’s effort to keep Trump off the ballot because he had engaged in an insurrection. The Court is still considering a challenge to the use of federal criminal law that, if decided one way, could negate the convictions of 350 insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol. And Alito is sitting on the former President's assertion of immunity when he and others asked Georgia officials to find him some votes, and when he oversaw and helped to orchestrate fake electors frauds in several states. A wise man without years of unfettered hubris to guide him (or a desire to weigh in on these important issues as a partisan?) would politely recuse -- as Kavanaugh did recently in another case.

For the record, I am pretty skeptical about the "my wife did it" story. But even if that is the case, spouses of government officials -- particularly one so conspicuous, so unique, and so important in our system of checked and balanced powers -- have to accept modest inroads on their ability to speak exactly as one wants, all the time. This isn't an "abrogation of their constitutional rights;" it is recognition that they and their spouses do a peculiarly important job in the government system, and one that prizes impartiality and the appearance of impartiality above other everyday interests.

I revere the constitutional system, and revere the judicial branch in particular, having been a participant in its workings and among its judges and clerks and staff for over 35 years. It is based, like a lot of things, on some measure of trust, and is therefore something of a fragile thing. If Justices and their spouses and housemates want to take a public position on an issue in their neighborhood, they should have the awareness and intelligence to understand that that position-taking should remove them from consideration of someone's case and the litigant's expectation of impartiality.

So what you are trying to tell me counselor, and I do appreciate you and I do respect your opinion although I disagree with vehemently on this. I'm sure your familiar with the 1st amendment. You may have read about it many years ago when you were in law school. Correct me if I'm wrong because I believe it says something about freedom of speech. That is the same 1st amendment that protects your right to publicly burn the American flag in public protest. Yet that same 1st amendment right does not carry over to Justice Alito and his wife in your opinion. If you revere the Constitution counselor then act like it. Unless your legal experience has given you knowledge of some controlling legal authority that Denied Justice Alito and his wife the same constitutional rights that you claim you revere. I may be getting the details wrong but wasn't it John Adams that defended the British soldiers that no one else would touch. You might dislike justice Alito and his legal temperament but both you and he are obligated to defend the constitution.

Respectfully, I think you need to read more carefully. The Alitos have rights under the First Amendment. They just need to understand that their unfettered exercise of those rights have consequences that, for a person in Alito's position, are potentially injurious to the larger system of government and the trust upon which it largely rests. The Alitos' arrogance seems to me to be the issue.

[MDlaxfan76]

That was a wonderfully comprehensive explanation.

I would add for those who revere the 1st Amendment free speech rights that no Constitutional ‘right’ is unrestricted.

And, while the government may not restrict most free speech, including speech which is repugnant to the majority, there is nevertheless accountability for the choice to exercise this right. This may be social, employment, or other repercussions.

In this instance, a Justice has a duty to the Court that does not restrict his free speech but rather requires him to protect the interests of the Court through recusal or resignation.

Fly the flag, but recuse. Wife sends crazy emails, recuse.
Or resign.

Make a speech that prejudges a case coming before the Court, recuse.

Exercising free speech is fine, but recognize the repercussions of accountability.

[Seacoaster(1)]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... g-00160450

"His wife might have been the one who raised it, but given that it flew outside a house he lives in, it is entirely reasonable to assume that Alito explicitly or tacitly endorsed the message of the flag. As one sitting federal judge put it, “Any judge with reasonable ethical instincts would have realized immediately that flying the flag then and in that way was improper. And dumb.”

[ggait]

Alito was/is totally fine with the messages conveyed by the flags. Totally in line with tons of his public speeches (typically delivered from swank overseas locales paid for donors) detailing all the grievances bubbling inside of his Faux News addled brain.

His questions at the immunity case hearing were beyond belief.

Alito Thomas and their mentor Scalia are all welfare queens grifting freebies and handouts from well heeled benefactors.

Someone gave Thomas a free luxury $$$ RV, didn’t report it, and has zero consequences. Total bs. Any Dem justice doing anything like that would have been forced to resign years ago — by the Dems of course.

[ggait]

.

[PizzaSnake]

Alito was/is totally fine with the messages conveyed by the flags. Totally in line with tons of his public speeches (typically delivered from swank overseas locales paid for donors) detailing all the grievances bubbling inside of his Faux News addled brain.

His questions at the immunity case hearing were beyond belief.

Alito Thomas and their mentor Scalia are all welfare queens grifting freebies and handouts from well heeled benefactors.

Someone gave Thomas a free luxury $$$ RV, didn’t report it, and has zero consequences. Total bs. Any Dem justice doing anything like that would have been forced to resign years ago — by the Dems of course.

And this blatant flouting of propriety, if not outright illegality, only exacerbates the loss of faith in the rule of law. Inching towards straight-up oligarchy.

[youthathletics]

Alito was/is totally fine with the messages conveyed by the flags. Totally in line with tons of his public speeches (typically delivered from swank overseas locales paid for donors) detailing all the grievances bubbling inside of his Faux News addled brain.

His questions at the immunity case hearing were beyond belief.

Alito Thomas and their mentor Scalia are all welfare queens grifting freebies and handouts from well heeled benefactors.

Someone gave Thomas a free luxury $$$ RV, didn’t report it, and has zero consequences. Total bs. Any Dem justice doing anything like that would have been forced to resign years ago — by the Dems of course.

And this blatant flouting of propriety, if not outright illegality, only exacerbates the loss of faith in the rule of law. Inching towards straight-up oligarchy.

-1

[Seacoaster(1)]

Alito was/is totally fine with the messages conveyed by the flags. Totally in line with tons of his public speeches (typically delivered from swank overseas locales paid for donors) detailing all the grievances bubbling inside of his Faux News addled brain.

His questions at the immunity case hearing were beyond belief.

Alito Thomas and their mentor Scalia are all welfare queens grifting freebies and handouts from well heeled benefactors.

Someone gave Thomas a free luxury $$$ RV, didn’t report it, and has zero consequences. Total bs. Any Dem justice doing anything like that would have been forced to resign years ago — by the Dems of course.

And this blatant flouting of propriety, if not outright illegality, only exacerbates the loss of faith in the rule of law. Inching towards straight-up oligarchy.

-1

Why "-1"?

[youthathletics]

Alito was/is totally fine with the messages conveyed by the flags. Totally in line with tons of his public speeches (typically delivered from swank overseas locales paid for donors) detailing all the grievances bubbling inside of his Faux News addled brain.

His questions at the immunity case hearing were beyond belief.

Alito Thomas and their mentor Scalia are all welfare queens grifting freebies and handouts from well heeled benefactors.

Someone gave Thomas a free luxury $$$ RV, didn’t report it, and has zero consequences. Total bs. Any Dem justice doing anything like that would have been forced to resign years ago — by the Dems of course.

And this blatant flouting of propriety, if not outright illegality, only exacerbates the loss of faith in the rule of law. Inching towards straight-up oligarchy.

-1

Why "-1"?

conjecture

[Seacoaster(1)]

Alito was/is totally fine with the messages conveyed by the flags. Totally in line with tons of his public speeches (typically delivered from swank overseas locales paid for donors) detailing all the grievances bubbling inside of his Faux News addled brain.

His questions at the immunity case hearing were beyond belief.

Alito Thomas and their mentor Scalia are all welfare queens grifting freebies and handouts from well heeled benefactors.

Someone gave Thomas a free luxury $$$ RV, didn’t report it, and has zero consequences. Total bs. Any Dem justice doing anything like that would have been forced to resign years ago — by the Dems of course.

And this blatant flouting of propriety, if not outright illegality, only exacerbates the loss of faith in the rule of law. Inching towards straight-up oligarchy.

-1

Why "-1"?

conjecture

Oh, right; we can't have that here on Fanlax. Back to #bubblebathgirl, I guess.

[youthathletics]

Alito was/is totally fine with the messages conveyed by the flags. Totally in line with tons of his public speeches (typically delivered from swank overseas locales paid for donors) detailing all the grievances bubbling inside of his Faux News addled brain.

His questions at the immunity case hearing were beyond belief.

Alito Thomas and their mentor Scalia are all welfare queens grifting freebies and handouts from well heeled benefactors.

Someone gave Thomas a free luxury $$$ RV, didn’t report it, and has zero consequences. Total bs. Any Dem justice doing anything like that would have been forced to resign years ago — by the Dems of course.

And this blatant flouting of propriety, if not outright illegality, only exacerbates the loss of faith in the rule of law. Inching towards straight-up oligarchy.

-1

Why "-1"?

conjecture

Oh, right; we can't have that here on Fanlax. Back to #bubblebathgirl, I guess.

You guys love to make my points for me. If we do not agree with you, we are wrong..here comes the barb in return. Thank you, come again!