SCOTUS

[MDlaxfan76]

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!

mmm, try actually explaining your disagreement rather than just saying (I disagree) as in "-1", and then "conjecture" as if that means anything at all.

For instance, is Thomas getting "a free luxury $$$ RV, didn’t report it", not a "flouting of propriety", or possible "outright illegality" (bribe)?

Or are you disagreeing that this sort of thing, the refusal to recuse when there's a clearly reasonable concern about a conflict of interest (eg Thomas' wife could be brought into the conspiracy being brought in DC Federal Court) or...any of these events is leading to "a loss of faith in the rule of law"?

Or what?

Don't complain about posters slamming you for not engaging on substance if you don't engage on substance...it ain't merely that you register disagreement, it's that you don't fully engage in good faith. We know you're capable, so go ahead and give it a chance...

[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.

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

I'm glad you brought the love birds up. My son was a Federal Air Marshall at the time this chit show went down between the love birds. My son is the world's straightest shooter when it comes to top secret classified information. His analogy is spot on is and taken directly from The Godfather. When Don Corleone lectures Sonny about never talking about the family business ever in front of other people...well that is advise the lovebirds should have heeded. They discussed family business in a format that all of the world got to see. This is business they could have discussed at the local watering hole sipping on Leopold Brothers fine bourbon among fellow members of the law enforcement family. They chose to share things with the entire world by using their work laptops thinking they would never become public. I can't emphasize enough among most federal law enforcement front line agents how stupid these 2 agents were.
FTR my man...when your a federal law enforcement agent the right to privacy does not exist except in theory. I texted my son once about something relatively innocuous. He responded back to me dad please don't ever text something like that on his work laptop. The powers that be monitor everything on their laptops. That comes with the territory when your a federal law enforcement agent with a top secret security clearance. Someone somewhere is always looking over your shoulder.

[old salt]

To answer the 1st Amendment/recusal whataboutisms, did Justice or Mrs Alito do any of the following ?
-- donate to Trump's campaign or any PAC supporting him.
-- have a child who works for a (R) political campaign consulting & fund raising firm ?
-- send emails on his govt provided electronic device discussing their hatred for Biden & plan to prevent his election ?

[cradleandshoot]

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!

mmm, try actually explaining your disagreement rather than just saying (I disagree) as in "-1", and then "conjecture" as if that means anything at all.

For instance, is Thomas getting "a free luxury $$$ RV, didn’t report it", not a "flouting of propriety", or possible "outright illegality" (bribe)?

Or are you disagreeing that this sort of thing, the refusal to recuse when there's a clearly reasonable concern about a conflict of interest (eg Thomas' wife could be brought into the conspiracy being brought in DC Federal Court) or...any of these events is leading to "a loss of faith in the rule of law"?

Or what?

Don't complain about posters slamming you for not engaging on substance if you don't engage on substance...it ain't merely that you register disagreement, it's that you don't fully engage in good faith. We know you're capable, so go ahead and give it a chance...

So what law did Alito or his wife break? It appears their first amendment rights don't mean jackchit to your kind. So very glad Justice Alito told you and your ilk where to go. You would be better served MD to go outside and chase those WNC out of your back yard. You and your ilk are a greater danger to this country than trump will ever be. trump will eventually assume room temperature. The scary thing is your ideology might live on. That is when the time comes when I can only drive an MD lax fan approved electric vehicle. Because you think think that is the right thing for all Americans to do.

[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

I'm glad you brought the love birds up. My son was a Federal Air Marshall at the time this chit show went down between the love birds. My son is the world's straightest shooter when it comes to top secret classified information. His analogy is spot on is and taken directly from The Godfather. When Don Corleone lectures Sonny about never talking about the family business ever in front of other people...well that is advise the lovebirds should have heeded. They discussed family business in a format that all of the world got to see. This is business they could have discussed at the local watering hole sipping on Leopold Brothers fine bourbon among fellow members of the law enforcement family. They chose to share things with the entire world by using their work laptops thinking they would never become public. I can't emphasize enough among most federal law enforcement front line agents how stupid these 2 agents were.

Oh, they're idiots. I agree completely. And it was .gov cellphones they used. However, they just sued for making that public....and the FBI/DOj settled the case. Meaning, they should NOT have made their private communications public.

To my point: explain how hanging a flag at his home, showing support of Jan 6th---- in full public view------is fine, but the FBI idiots privately texting using a .gov phone that they hate Trump is bad?

You can't square the two, my man.

[a fan]

To answer the 1st Amendment/recusal whataboutisms, did Justice or Mrs Alito do any of the following ?
-- donate to Trump's campaign or any PAC supporting him.
-- have a child who works for a (R) political campaign consulting & fund raising firm ?
-- send emails on his govt provided electronic device discussing their hatred for Biden & plan to prevent his election ?

It's not "whataboutism". You're still getting that wrong.

Either 1st amendment applies to the FBI, Justice Dept, and all Federal agencies., and folks have no grounds to complain about law or ethics....

Or it doesn't apply. Which one do you choose?

That's "everyoneistreatedthesameism"

[old salt]

To eliminate confusion -- Judges & Justices are expected to recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest.

FBI agents & lawyers are expected to put their political preferences & prejudices aside when performing their duties.

[Seacoaster(1)]

To eliminate confusion -- Judges & Justices are expected to recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest.

FBI agents & lawyers are expected to put their political preferences & prejudices aside when performing their duties.

Federal judges are required to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” But thanks for trying to “eliminate confusion” with your usual bullsh@t.

[Typical Lax Dad]

To eliminate confusion -- Judges & Justices are expected to recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest.

FBI agents & lawyers are expected to put their political preferences & prejudices aside when performing their duties.

[a fan]

To eliminate confusion -- Judges & Justices are expected to recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest.

Did Alito do that? Nope.

Alito rejects calls to recuse from Trump, Jan. 6 cases in light of flag controversies

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/05/alit ... roversies/

So you're disappointed with Alito according to your above statement. We're square.

FBI agents & lawyers are expected to put their political preferences & prejudices aside when performing their duties.

They did just that, and were found to do that via several reviews. Page wasn't involved in starting Crossfire, and Page wasn't the high level decision maker to start it up, either.

And you agreed, multiple times, that once Manafort was hired, and lied about working for Putin on a publicly viewable Federal Form, it made perfect sense for the FBI to investigate.

For the Carter Page? You like FISA, and believe it works. I don't for the very reason that Page was f'ed....that, and the fact that it is a CLEAR violation of Constitutional protections of US citizens.

We're on the same page, except for FISA.

[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.

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

I'm glad you brought the love birds up. My son was a Federal Air Marshall at the time this chit show went down between the love birds. My son is the world's straightest shooter when it comes to top secret classified information. His analogy is spot on is and taken directly from The Godfather. When Don Corleone lectures Sonny about never talking about the family business ever in front of other people...well that is advise the lovebirds should have heeded. They discussed family business in a format that all of the world got to see. This is business they could have discussed at the local watering hole sipping on Leopold Brothers fine bourbon among fellow members of the law enforcement family. They chose to share things with the entire world by using their work laptops thinking they would never become public. I can't emphasize enough among most federal law enforcement front line agents how stupid these 2 agents were.

Oh, they're idiots. I agree completely. And it was .gov cellphones they used. However, they just sued for making that public....and the FBI/DOj settled the case. Meaning, they should NOT have made their private communications public.

To my point: explain how hanging a flag at his home, showing support of Jan 6th---- in full public view------is fine, but the FBI idiots privately texting using a .gov phone that they hate Trump is bad?

You can't square the two, my man.

Probably my man in some circles where some people consider burning the flag a patriotic gesture then the ambiguity comes into play. How was hanging any flag a symbol of support for Jan. 6? Some of those Jan.6 people also waved American flags. So if we insert your logic here then the American flag is also a symbol of support for Jan 6. I have a Betsy Ross 13 star flag hanging in front of my house that I bought shortly after 9/11. I purchased it because the standard 50 star flags were all sold out. Some of the Jan. 6 protesters also carried the same damn Betsy Ross flag...so using your logic I am now an anti government right wing fanatic. My man I bet you don't remember my very unpopular position about Jan 6 on this very forum? So your ASSUMPTION is flying a flag = support of a particular cause or ideology. The Betsy Ross flag I fly my man is because I love it, I love the country it use to stand for. Why should I care that the Betsy Ross flag represents symbolically to some people something it was never meant to represent? That my man is asinine at face value. I don't think I am mistaking what you mean. Your insinuating Alito supported the Jan 6 because of a flag he flew and how he flew it. He could burn that same flag and stomp on it and you would be fine with that... constitution protects that right my man? Assuming you know what Alito meant by his flying upside down sends you potentially heading towards a very slippery slope.

[a fan]

Probably my man in some circles where some people consider burning the flag a patriotic gesture then the ambiguity comes into play. How was hanging any flag a symbol of support for Jan. 6? Some of those Jan.6 people also waved American flags. So if we insert your logic here then the American flag is also a symbol of support for Jan 6. I have a Betsy Ross 13 star flag hanging in front of my house that I bought shortly after 9/11. I purchased it because the standard 50 star flags were all sold out. Some of the Jan. 6 protesters also carried the same damn Betsy Ross flag...so using your logic I am now an anti government right wing fanatic. My man I bet you don't remember my very unpopular position about Jan 6 on this very forum. So your ASSUMPTION is flying a flag = support of a particular cause or ideology. The Betsy Ross flag I fly my man is because I love it, I love the country it use to stand for. Why should I care that the Betsy Ross flag represents symbolically to some people something it was never meant to represent? That my man is asinine at face value. I don't think I am mistaking what you mean. Your insinuating Alito supported the Jan 6 because of a flag he flew and how he flew it. He could burn that same flag and stomp on it and you would be fine with that... constitution protects that right my man?

It was flow upside down. Dude. Come on. A Supreme Court justice A. flies the American flag upside down, and B. this is a known practice by Jan6th nutjobs.......and you're telling me that's no big deal?

FLy the flag. Do what you want.

But as Old Salt says: recuse yourself from the Jan 6th and Trump case, because of the conflict of interest literally flown on his own yard.

Do that? He's good.

You see the problem. I KNOW you see the problem.

[cradleandshoot]

To eliminate confusion -- Judges & Justices are expected to recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest.

FBI agents & lawyers are expected to put their political preferences & prejudices aside when performing their duties.

Federal judges are required to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” But thanks for trying to “eliminate confusion” with your usual bullsh@t.

Come on counselor, you've dedicated your entire legal career on creating confusion and ambiguity to win your case. You sure as hell can't properly defend your client any other way. You might have heard about it at sometime in your legal career. I believe it's referred to as " reasonable doubt" also referred to as legal bullchit.

[cradleandshoot]

Probably my man in some circles where some people consider burning the flag a patriotic gesture then the ambiguity comes into play. How was hanging any flag a symbol of support for Jan. 6? Some of those Jan.6 people also waved American flags. So if we insert your logic here then the American flag is also a symbol of support for Jan 6. I have a Betsy Ross 13 star flag hanging in front of my house that I bought shortly after 9/11. I purchased it because the standard 50 star flags were all sold out. Some of the Jan. 6 protesters also carried the same damn Betsy Ross flag...so using your logic I am now an anti government right wing fanatic. My man I bet you don't remember my very unpopular position about Jan 6 on this very forum. So your ASSUMPTION is flying a flag = support of a particular cause or ideology. The Betsy Ross flag I fly my man is because I love it, I love the country it use to stand for. Why should I care that the Betsy Ross flag represents symbolically to some people something it was never meant to represent? That my man is asinine at face value. I don't think I am mistaking what you mean. Your insinuating Alito supported the Jan 6 because of a flag he flew and how he flew it. He could burn that same flag and stomp on it and you would be fine with that... constitution protects that right my man?

It was flow upside down. Dude. Come on. A Supreme Court justice A. flies the American flag upside down, and B. this is a known practice by Jan6th nutjobs.......and you're telling me that's no big deal?

FLy the flag. Do what you want.

But as Old Salt says: recuse yourself from the Jan 6th and Trump case, because of the conflict of interest literally flown on his own yard.

Do that? He's good.

You see the problem. I KNOW you see the problem.

So since when has it become illegal for him or any other American to fly the flag upside down, sideways or diagonally for that matter? Does being a SCOTUS justice deny you your 1st amendment rights? Alito has no obligation to recuse himself if he so chooses. I understand why that aggravates some people. The justice did nothing illegal or wrong. There are 8 other SCOTUS justices that could do the same thing and my opinion would be the same. The 1st amendment is what it is my man. You already know that. To my knowledge no caveats were ever inserted.

[Seacoaster(1)]

To eliminate confusion -- Judges & Justices are expected to recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest.

FBI agents & lawyers are expected to put their political preferences & prejudices aside when performing their duties.

Federal judges are required to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” But thanks for trying to “eliminate confusion” with your usual bullsh@t.

Come on counselor, you've dedicated your entire legal career on creating confusion and ambiguity to win your case. You sure as hell can't properly defend your client any other way. You might have heard about it at sometime in your legal career. I believe it's referred to as " reasonable doubt" also referred to as legal bullchit.

You appear to know very, very little about law and lawyering. Finders of fact loath ambiguity; the trick is to give them a plausible factual scenario to work with, and convince them why it is right, and why it leads to one conclusion. I don't opine much on vending machine operations. Maybe you should stand down a little about stuff you really know nothing about.

OS posits a high standard for recusal -- a conflict of interest -- instead of the federal standard that mandates, not only recusal for a conflict, but acting in a manner that "promotes public confidence." I know you toady to the ex cathedra words of OS. But he is wrong about when judges should recuse. And almost every judge to weigh in on the issue says the same about Alito -- that he should recuse, and that flying the flag (or, sorry, allowing his wife to fly the flags in neighborhoods that know he is in residence and co-owns the property) was just really stupid and arrogant.

[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.

-1

Why "-1"?

conjecture

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

"'Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.'" -- Democritus

[a fan]

So since when has it become illegal for him or any other American to fly the flag upside down, sideways or diagonally for that matter? Does being a SCOTUS justice deny you your 1st amendment rights? Alito has no obligation to recuse himself if he so chooses. I understand why that aggravates some people. The justice did nothing illegal or wrong. There are 8 other SCOTUS justices that could do the same thing and my opinion would be the same. The 1st amendment is what it is my man. You already know that. To my knowledge no caveats were ever inserted.

Great. Then don't apply this idea to any other Federal Government agency.


This means you think that FBI agents are welcome to 1st Amendment rights to political conflicts of interest.

This is a 100% reversal from where you were on many subjects. Hunter Biden? Remember your posts on that? Multiple posts about the whistleblowers complaining about political interference?

The SCOTUS can have conflicts and political opinion that affect their work....but the DoJ and FBI can't?

Seriously?

[youthathletics]

Maybe if Alito took a knee, the left would then praise him.

[a fan]

Maybe if Alito took a knee, the left would then praise him.

You telling us that you're okay with conflicts? It's ok if an FBI agent alters his work based on political conflicts?

You boys are gaslighting so hard right now. There is NO WAY you boys think this is ok.

Fly the flag? Fine.

Then recuse from cases related to what that flag means. Fake problem solved.

[MDlaxfan76]

Maybe if Alito took a knee, the left would then praise him.

You telling us that you're okay with conflicts? It's ok if an FBI agent alters his work based on political conflicts?

You boys are gaslighting so hard right now. There is NO WAY you boys think this is ok.

Fly the flag? Fine.

Then recuse from cases related to what that flag means. Fake problem solved.

Exactly. It's difficult to believe they're this stupid, thus gaslighting.
Well, maybe not all...