cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 7:00 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 6:48 am
old salt wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 2:18 am
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.