Alito suggest obeying judges orders can be optional

[Anonymous]

Louisiana case argued in SC is Alito going to say Trump has the option of not obeying any court order with which Trump disagrees?

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/samuel-alito-lower-courts/

[Anonymous]

Mother Jones is not a reliable interpreter of facts.

Alito didn't suggest any such thing. He asked the attorneys what they thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mother Jones is not a reliable interpreter of facts.

Alito didn't suggest any such thing. He asked the attorneys what they thought.

BS he absolutely did this.

He is a POS there is no way he should still be on the bench. He is a traitor to the US with Thomas.

Alito is 100% unfit for that seat.

We all know what he will rule.
His rulings never waiver they are all UnConstitutional. his failure to recuse despite the clear conflicts at play in cases related to January 6th and the 2020 election is inexcusable.

And this The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision refused the Trump administration’s request to halt a federal judge’s order requiring the federal government to payout nearly $2 billion in foreign aid funds for work already completed. Justice Samuel Alito disagreed with the court’s majority, penning a scathing dissent in which he declared that the decision left him “stunned.” Alito is a dam traitor. While he wasn't the only justice to side with Trump all the ones who did took monies from gee guess who.

And that same ruling he wrote "but simply because a District Judge so ordered" but in the case Mother Jone's cites he's all in for a single judge to make a decision as long as that decision supports Trump!

And the bribes he has taken from Leo. He and Thomas.. Yeah both are unfit.

Mike Johnson floated his crap as well getting rid of Federal Judges wth??? No absolutely NO.

Our system of laws maybe imperfect but Alito is a god dammed traitor to the US.

[Anonymous]

Nothing PP wrote is evidence that Alito suggested it's
OK to disobey a judge's order.

Facts matter.

Alito, a Supreme Court judge that has authority to overrule district court, said that the district court ordered the payment without legal basis, and voted to overrule that order.

That is the opposite of "suggesting it's OK to ignore a court order".

Did he say "I don't even know why the district court are botherred to publish it's ruling, because Trump didn't ask for it and has no obligation to obey it; court opinions are merely advisory?" No, he did not say that.

Alito said that "district court ordered it" is not sufficient basis for SCOTUS, a higher court, to uphold the order; the order also may be correct.

Feel free to disagree with opinion. It's not cool to misrepresent what he said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/10/us/politics/usaid-foreign-aid-freeze-release-deadline.html

[Anonymous]

Of course it is optional. Just like obeying the laws is optional for citizens. Just like 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' is optional.

[Anonymous]

Republicans have proven obeying most laws is optional since January.

[Anonymous]

Alito and Thomas are guarantees to agree with Trump for anything Trump puts in front of them. So corrupt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing PP wrote is evidence that Alito suggested it's
OK to disobey a judge's order.

Facts matter.

Alito, a Supreme Court judge that has authority to overrule district court, said that the district court ordered the payment without legal basis, and voted to overrule that order.

That is the opposite of "suggesting it's OK to ignore a court order".

Did he say "I don't even know why the district court are botherred to publish it's ruling, because Trump didn't ask for it and has no obligation to obey it; court opinions are merely advisory?" No, he did not say that.

Alito said that "district court ordered it" is not sufficient basis for SCOTUS, a higher court, to uphold the order; the order also may be correct.

Feel free to disagree with opinion. It's not cool to misrepresent what he said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/10/us/politics/usaid-foreign-aid-freeze-release-deadline.html

We get it you want to gaslight and make people who are seeing red flags every where feel thay are being "dramatic" This is a corrupt administration and they are quietly and quickly taking away checks/balances, laws, rights....we are moving in to a dictatorship. Feel free to keep your eyes closed but many of us see what game is being played and the American people lose in this game if it continues.

[Anonymous]

I guess obeying the Supreme Court will eventually be optional too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alito and Thomas are guarantees to agree with Trump for anything Trump puts in front of them. So corrupt

The three Democrat appointees just vote for the Democrats' preferred outcome. No one ever doubts how they will vote on a close case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alito and Thomas are guarantees to agree with Trump for anything Trump puts in front of them. So corrupt

The three Democrat appointees just vote for the Democrats' preferred outcome. No one ever doubts how they will vote on a close case.

Nice try with the projection there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing PP wrote is evidence that Alito suggested it's
OK to disobey a judge's order.

Facts matter.

Alito, a Supreme Court judge that has authority to overrule district court, said that the district court ordered the payment without legal basis, and voted to overrule that order.

That is the opposite of "suggesting it's OK to ignore a court order".

Did he say "I don't even know why the district court are botherred to publish it's ruling, because Trump didn't ask for it and has no obligation to obey it; court opinions are merely advisory?" No, he did not say that.

Alito said that "district court ordered it" is not sufficient basis for SCOTUS, a higher court, to uphold the order; the order also may be correct.

Feel free to disagree with opinion. It's not cool to misrepresent what he said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/10/us/politics/usaid-foreign-aid-freeze-release-deadline.html

We get it you want to gaslight and make people who are seeing red flags every where feel thay are being "dramatic" This is a corrupt administration and they are quietly and quickly taking away checks/balances, laws, rights....we are moving in to a dictatorship. Feel free to keep your eyes closed but many of us see what game is being played and the American people lose in this game if it continues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing PP wrote is evidence that Alito suggested it's
OK to disobey a judge's order.

Facts matter.

Alito, a Supreme Court judge that has authority to overrule district court, said that the district court ordered the payment without legal basis, and voted to overrule that order.

That is the opposite of "suggesting it's OK to ignore a court order".

Did he say "I don't even know why the district court are botherred to publish it's ruling, because Trump didn't ask for it and has no obligation to obey it; court opinions are merely advisory?" No, he did not say that.

Alito said that "district court ordered it" is not sufficient basis for SCOTUS, a higher court, to uphold the order; the order also may be correct.

Feel free to disagree with opinion. It's not cool to misrepresent what he said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/10/us/politics/usaid-foreign-aid-freeze-release-deadline.html

We get it you want to gaslight and make people who are seeing red flags every where feel thay are being "dramatic" This is a corrupt administration and they are quietly and quickly taking away checks/balances, laws, rights....we are moving in to a dictatorship. Feel free to keep your eyes closed but many of us see what game is being played and the American people lose in this game if it continues.

Outrage is only meaningful when backed up by facts.

Otherwise it's just MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Start with ignoring Sam's bloviations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing PP wrote is evidence that Alito suggested it's
OK to disobey a judge's order.

Facts matter.

Alito, a Supreme Court judge that has authority to overrule district court, said that the district court ordered the payment without legal basis, and voted to overrule that order.

That is the opposite of "suggesting it's OK to ignore a court order".

Did he say "I don't even know why the district court are botherred to publish it's ruling, because Trump didn't ask for it and has no obligation to obey it; court opinions are merely advisory?" No, he did not say that.

Alito said that "district court ordered it" is not sufficient basis for SCOTUS, a higher court, to uphold the order; the order also may be correct.

Feel free to disagree with opinion. It's not cool to misrepresent what he said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/10/us/politics/usaid-foreign-aid-freeze-release-deadline.html

“What if the Robinson decision were plainly wrong?” Alito asked. “Would you still have a good reason to follow it?”

Louisiana’s solicitor general, Benjamin Aguiñaga, agreed that a wildly bad decision might be the rare kind of situation in which a state could not rely on a court order to justify its new map. But Alito pressed on, positing even weaker cases where a court might be ignored:

“What if it weren’t wildly wrong?” the justice asked. “You look at it and it’s wrong. They misapplied something.”

Deciding whether an order is "plainly wrong" or "misapplied something" is not what the subjects of orders get to do.

Consider, for example, a non-custodial parent who believes that the court was wrong in ordering full custody to the other parent. Certainly, it is possible that for whatever reason, custody was granted to somebody who, say, sexually abused their child and the other parent is unable to convince law enforcement or the courts that that happened. Or maybe the person not awarded custody is really the person who is dangerous for their child to be around. If that person travels across state lines to carry out a parental abduction and is caught, they are most certainly going to jail. By raising the question, Alito is challenging the assumption that court orders are to be followed, when he should, in fact, be sticking to the presumption they are to be followed.