Alito displayed a “stop the steal” symbol at his home

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Laurence Tribe:

So Alito, as Circuit Justice for CA3, was pivotal to the plot to overturn the 2020 election, taking part in the S.Ct. cases then pending against PA while brazenly displaying the symbol of the insurrection. If this misbehavior doesn’t merit a full impeachment inquiry, what would?

If the GOP hadn’t turned traitor, it would.

Yup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has a right to free speech because, get this, Supreme Court justices are US citizens.

It’s his private property.

Thank you very much. In the omnibus corrupt Supreme Court thread I said this is what your side would try as an excuse.

Really? Defending free speech now is an excuse?

Anyways, here is link to the hatch act.

Please read it. Alito did nothing wrong.

https://osc.gov/Services/Pages/HatchAct-Federal.aspx

So you're suggesting that they needed to add a bullet to cover federal employees supporting an insurrection? I'm not sure they had that much foresight that this was needed when pulling this legislation together.

Both he and his wife are allowed free speech. They did this on their own property. His wife is allowed to be her own person - he does not own her and she is not bound to the SCOTUS ethics.

Believe it or not, woman can have their own opinions.

Hahahaha. This former general’s wife thinks this is hysterically naive. The fun thing about being married to guys like this is that at we don’t get all the ethics training they get but we can 100% make mistakes that end their careers.

Military wives (not being sexist here- I'm a female vet but being realistic, generals are overwhelmingly male) are completely different from spouses of senior government officials. Most government agencies have no-- none-- null training for spouses. The nature of the work is such that a spouse may never have any contact with the agency or any representatives of the agency aside from the spouse. Moreover, it's common that the non-governmental spouse is the one making (often much) more money. It's one thing to ask a SAHM Military spouse to get on board. It's a completely different thing to tell a spouse making 10x the salary of the government official that they can't express political opinions. Especially when there are no actual legal requirements for them to censor themselves.

What a load of crap. No, it’s not about the non-government spouse’s job and how much you can bully her into giving up her independence for the government employee's role. It’s about ethics and professionalism. In fact there was a lawsuit about this years ago. Just because military spouses move all the time and it’s hard to have a career, idoesn’t mean the military gets to make them free employees.

You have no idea what you’re talking about and your ignorance is astonishing.

I don't understand how your response is relevant to what I wrote. Complying with ethics laws doesn't make someone a "free employee." But the fact remains that military spouses tend to have broad exposure to the military through balls, events, family readiness groups, and various life issues related to being a dependent. By contrast, the spouse of a government official may have no such contact with the agency, and will be entirely unaware of these rules except to the extent that 1) they are told by the government spouse, and 2) they have a compliant nature. Gov and military are apples and oranges-- totally different lifestyles and levels of exposure to the spouse's job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has a right to free speech because, get this, Supreme Court justices are US citizens.

It’s his private property.

Thank you very much. In the omnibus corrupt Supreme Court thread I said this is what your side would try as an excuse.

Really? Defending free speech now is an excuse?

Anyways, here is link to the hatch act.

Please read it. Alito did nothing wrong.

https://osc.gov/Services/Pages/HatchAct-Federal.aspx

So you're suggesting that they needed to add a bullet to cover federal employees supporting an insurrection? I'm not sure they had that much foresight that this was needed when pulling this legislation together.

Both he and his wife are allowed free speech. They did this on their own property. His wife is allowed to be her own person - he does not own her and she is not bound to the SCOTUS ethics.

Believe it or not, woman can have their own opinions.

Hahahaha. This former general’s wife thinks this is hysterically naive. The fun thing about being married to guys like this is that at we don’t get all the ethics training they get but we can 100% make mistakes that end their careers.

Military wives (not being sexist here- I'm a female vet but being realistic, generals are overwhelmingly male) are completely different from spouses of senior government officials. Most government agencies have no-- none-- null training for spouses. The nature of the work is such that a spouse may never have any contact with the agency or any representatives of the agency aside from the spouse. Moreover, it's common that the non-governmental spouse is the one making (often much) more money. It's one thing to ask a SAHM Military spouse to get on board. It's a completely different thing to tell a spouse making 10x the salary of the government official that they can't express political opinions. Especially when there are no actual legal requirements for them to censor themselves.

My wife is a high level non-political official. We have to fill out an intrusive financial disclosure every year that lists my assets along with hers. Also I cannot contribute to most political campaigns because of her position.

I'm a spouse of a federal employee and all of our combined assets are looked over every year by the ethics department of the fed agency, and the stocks and even mutual funds we can own are evaluated every single year. And what we are prohibited from owning changes with dh's federal position. Same thing for his coworkers.

But apparently if you are on the Supreme Court or Congress, anything goes.

Seriously why should you be held to a higher standard or a law that is not applied to anyone else?

AREN'T you clueless!!!! Because we don't want people on the government making decisions that line their pockets instead of doing what is best for the country.

Having a political yard sign doesn't line their pockets. It's also allowed under ethics rules for "further restricted employees."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has a right to free speech because, get this, Supreme Court justices are US citizens.

It’s his private property.

Thank you very much. In the omnibus corrupt Supreme Court thread I said this is what your side would try as an excuse.

Really? Defending free speech now is an excuse?

Anyways, here is link to the hatch act.

Please read it. Alito did nothing wrong.

https://osc.gov/Services/Pages/HatchAct-Federal.aspx

So you're suggesting that they needed to add a bullet to cover federal employees supporting an insurrection? I'm not sure they had that much foresight that this was needed when pulling this legislation together.

Both he and his wife are allowed free speech. They did this on their own property. His wife is allowed to be her own person - he does not own her and she is not bound to the SCOTUS ethics.

Believe it or not, woman can have their own opinions.

Hahahaha. This former general’s wife thinks this is hysterically naive. The fun thing about being married to guys like this is that at we don’t get all the ethics training they get but we can 100% make mistakes that end their careers.

Military wives (not being sexist here- I'm a female vet but being realistic, generals are overwhelmingly male) are completely different from spouses of senior government officials. Most government agencies have no-- none-- null training for spouses. The nature of the work is such that a spouse may never have any contact with the agency or any representatives of the agency aside from the spouse. Moreover, it's common that the non-governmental spouse is the one making (often much) more money. It's one thing to ask a SAHM Military spouse to get on board. It's a completely different thing to tell a spouse making 10x the salary of the government official that they can't express political opinions. Especially when there are no actual legal requirements for them to censor themselves.

My wife is a high level non-political official. We have to fill out an intrusive financial disclosure every year that lists my assets along with hers. Also I cannot contribute to most political campaigns because of her position.

I'm a spouse of a federal employee and all of our combined assets are looked over every year by the ethics department of the fed agency, and the stocks and even mutual funds we can own are evaluated every single year. And what we are prohibited from owning changes with dh's federal position. Same thing for his coworkers.

But apparently if you are on the Supreme Court or Congress, anything goes.

Seriously why should you be held to a higher standard or a law that is not applied to anyone else?

AREN'T you clueless!!!! Because we don't want people on the government making decisions that line their pockets instead of doing what is best for the country.

Having a political yard sign doesn't line their pockets. It's also allowed under ethics rules for "further restricted employees."

Not every single principle of honorable behavior needs to be explicitly spelled out. A Justice must behave in a way that does not give rise to doubt about his or her impartiality.

Flying a flag associated with an attempted coup and attack on the Capitol does comply with that standard.

Alito should be impeached.

[Anonymous]

I can’t believe that people are defending this obvious gesture. It’s scary that Alito (or the wifey lol) felt comfortable enough to do this. If they feel comfortable enough to publicly support the insurrectionists imagine the kind of deals they are making behind closed doors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has a right to free speech because, get this, Supreme Court justices are US citizens.

It’s his private property.

Thank you very much. In the omnibus corrupt Supreme Court thread I said this is what your side would try as an excuse.

Really? Defending free speech now is an excuse?

Anyways, here is link to the hatch act.

Please read it. Alito did nothing wrong.

https://osc.gov/Services/Pages/HatchAct-Federal.aspx

So you're suggesting that they needed to add a bullet to cover federal employees supporting an insurrection? I'm not sure they had that much foresight that this was needed when pulling this legislation together.

Both he and his wife are allowed free speech. They did this on their own property. His wife is allowed to be her own person - he does not own her and she is not bound to the SCOTUS ethics.

Believe it or not, woman can have their own opinions.

Hahahaha. This former general’s wife thinks this is hysterically naive. The fun thing about being married to guys like this is that at we don’t get all the ethics training they get but we can 100% make mistakes that end their careers.

Military wives (not being sexist here- I'm a female vet but being realistic, generals are overwhelmingly male) are completely different from spouses of senior government officials. Most government agencies have no-- none-- null training for spouses. The nature of the work is such that a spouse may never have any contact with the agency or any representatives of the agency aside from the spouse. Moreover, it's common that the non-governmental spouse is the one making (often much) more money. It's one thing to ask a SAHM Military spouse to get on board. It's a completely different thing to tell a spouse making 10x the salary of the government official that they can't express political opinions. Especially when there are no actual legal requirements for them to censor themselves.

What a load of crap. No, it’s not about the non-government spouse’s job and how much you can bully her into giving up her independence for the government employee's role. It’s about ethics and professionalism. In fact there was a lawsuit about this years ago. Just because military spouses move all the time and it’s hard to have a career, idoesn’t mean the military gets to make them free employees.

You have no idea what you’re talking about and your ignorance is astonishing.

I don't understand how your response is relevant to what I wrote. Complying with ethics laws doesn't make someone a "free employee." But the fact remains that military spouses tend to have broad exposure to the military through balls, events, family readiness groups, and various life issues related to being a dependent. By contrast, the spouse of a government official may have no such contact with the agency, and will be entirely unaware of these rules except to the extent that 1) they are told by the government spouse, and 2) they have a compliant nature. Gov and military are apples and oranges-- totally different lifestyles and levels of exposure to the spouse's job.

You're trying to tell me that, assuming you believe this idiotic story, Mrs Justice Alito is simply too stupid and ignorant to have realized that flying this flag would be a really inappropriate thing to do?

And that Mr Justice Alito never sees the front of his house so simply didn't realize that his idiot wife was flying the insurrectionist flag?

Well these people clearly belong at the pinnacle of society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has a right to free speech because, get this, Supreme Court justices are US citizens.

It’s his private property.

Thank you very much. In the omnibus corrupt Supreme Court thread I said this is what your side would try as an excuse.

Really? Defending free speech now is an excuse?

Anyways, here is link to the hatch act.

Please read it. Alito did nothing wrong.

https://osc.gov/Services/Pages/HatchAct-Federal.aspx

So you're suggesting that they needed to add a bullet to cover federal employees supporting an insurrection? I'm not sure they had that much foresight that this was needed when pulling this legislation together.

Both he and his wife are allowed free speech. They did this on their own property. His wife is allowed to be her own person - he does not own her and she is not bound to the SCOTUS ethics.

Believe it or not, woman can have their own opinions.

Hahahaha. This former general’s wife thinks this is hysterically naive. The fun thing about being married to guys like this is that at we don’t get all the ethics training they get but we can 100% make mistakes that end their careers.

Military wives (not being sexist here- I'm a female vet but being realistic, generals are overwhelmingly male) are completely different from spouses of senior government officials. Most government agencies have no-- none-- null training for spouses. The nature of the work is such that a spouse may never have any contact with the agency or any representatives of the agency aside from the spouse. Moreover, it's common that the non-governmental spouse is the one making (often much) more money. It's one thing to ask a SAHM Military spouse to get on board. It's a completely different thing to tell a spouse making 10x the salary of the government official that they can't express political opinions. Especially when there are no actual legal requirements for them to censor themselves.

My wife is a high level non-political official. We have to fill out an intrusive financial disclosure every year that lists my assets along with hers. Also I cannot contribute to most political campaigns because of her position.

I'm a spouse of a federal employee and all of our combined assets are looked over every year by the ethics department of the fed agency, and the stocks and even mutual funds we can own are evaluated every single year. And what we are prohibited from owning changes with dh's federal position. Same thing for his coworkers.

But apparently if you are on the Supreme Court or Congress, anything goes.

Seriously why should you be held to a higher standard or a law that is not applied to anyone else?

AREN'T you clueless!!!! Because we don't want people on the government making decisions that line their pockets instead of doing what is best for the country.

Having a political yard sign doesn't line their pockets. It's also allowed under ethics rules for "further restricted employees."

Not every single principle of honorable behavior needs to be explicitly spelled out. A Justice must behave in a way that does not give rise to doubt about his or her impartiality.

Flying a flag associated with an attempted coup and attack on the Capitol does comply with that standard.

Alito should be impeached.

If we did that, every judge nominated by democrats in the last 50 years would be removed from the bench.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has a right to free speech because, get this, Supreme Court justices are US citizens.

It’s his private property.

Thank you very much. In the omnibus corrupt Supreme Court thread I said this is what your side would try as an excuse.

Really? Defending free speech now is an excuse?

Anyways, here is link to the hatch act.

Please read it. Alito did nothing wrong.

https://osc.gov/Services/Pages/HatchAct-Federal.aspx

So you're suggesting that they needed to add a bullet to cover federal employees supporting an insurrection? I'm not sure they had that much foresight that this was needed when pulling this legislation together.

Both he and his wife are allowed free speech. They did this on their own property. His wife is allowed to be her own person - he does not own her and she is not bound to the SCOTUS ethics.

Believe it or not, woman can have their own opinions.

Hahahaha. This former general’s wife thinks this is hysterically naive. The fun thing about being married to guys like this is that at we don’t get all the ethics training they get but we can 100% make mistakes that end their careers.

Military wives (not being sexist here- I'm a female vet but being realistic, generals are overwhelmingly male) are completely different from spouses of senior government officials. Most government agencies have no-- none-- null training for spouses. The nature of the work is such that a spouse may never have any contact with the agency or any representatives of the agency aside from the spouse. Moreover, it's common that the non-governmental spouse is the one making (often much) more money. It's one thing to ask a SAHM Military spouse to get on board. It's a completely different thing to tell a spouse making 10x the salary of the government official that they can't express political opinions. Especially when there are no actual legal requirements for them to censor themselves.

My wife is a high level non-political official. We have to fill out an intrusive financial disclosure every year that lists my assets along with hers. Also I cannot contribute to most political campaigns because of her position.

I'm a spouse of a federal employee and all of our combined assets are looked over every year by the ethics department of the fed agency, and the stocks and even mutual funds we can own are evaluated every single year. And what we are prohibited from owning changes with dh's federal position. Same thing for his coworkers.

But apparently if you are on the Supreme Court or Congress, anything goes.

Seriously why should you be held to a higher standard or a law that is not applied to anyone else?

AREN'T you clueless!!!! Because we don't want people on the government making decisions that line their pockets instead of doing what is best for the country.

Having a political yard sign doesn't line their pockets. It's also allowed under ethics rules for "further restricted employees."

Not every single principle of honorable behavior needs to be explicitly spelled out. A Justice must behave in a way that does not give rise to doubt about his or her impartiality.

Flying a flag associated with an attempted coup and attack on the Capitol does comply with that standard.

Alito should be impeached.

If we did that, every judge nominated by democrats in the last 50 years would be removed from the bench.

Sure, sure. And your evidence is… nothing.

Alito is an insurrectionist.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has a right to free speech because, get this, Supreme Court justices are US citizens.

It’s his private property.

Thank you very much. In the omnibus corrupt Supreme Court thread I said this is what your side would try as an excuse.

Really? Defending free speech now is an excuse?

Anyways, here is link to the hatch act.

Please read it. Alito did nothing wrong.

https://osc.gov/Services/Pages/HatchAct-Federal.aspx

So you're suggesting that they needed to add a bullet to cover federal employees supporting an insurrection? I'm not sure they had that much foresight that this was needed when pulling this legislation together.

Both he and his wife are allowed free speech. They did this on their own property. His wife is allowed to be her own person - he does not own her and she is not bound to the SCOTUS ethics.

Believe it or not, woman can have their own opinions.

Hahahaha. This former general’s wife thinks this is hysterically naive. The fun thing about being married to guys like this is that at we don’t get all the ethics training they get but we can 100% make mistakes that end their careers.

Military wives (not being sexist here- I'm a female vet but being realistic, generals are overwhelmingly male) are completely different from spouses of senior government officials. Most government agencies have no-- none-- null training for spouses. The nature of the work is such that a spouse may never have any contact with the agency or any representatives of the agency aside from the spouse. Moreover, it's common that the non-governmental spouse is the one making (often much) more money. It's one thing to ask a SAHM Military spouse to get on board. It's a completely different thing to tell a spouse making 10x the salary of the government official that they can't express political opinions. Especially when there are no actual legal requirements for them to censor themselves.

My wife is a high level non-political official. We have to fill out an intrusive financial disclosure every year that lists my assets along with hers. Also I cannot contribute to most political campaigns because of her position.

I'm a spouse of a federal employee and all of our combined assets are looked over every year by the ethics department of the fed agency, and the stocks and even mutual funds we can own are evaluated every single year. And what we are prohibited from owning changes with dh's federal position. Same thing for his coworkers.

But apparently if you are on the Supreme Court or Congress, anything goes.

Seriously why should you be held to a higher standard or a law that is not applied to anyone else?

AREN'T you clueless!!!! Because we don't want people on the government making decisions that line their pockets instead of doing what is best for the country.

Having a political yard sign doesn't line their pockets. It's also allowed under ethics rules for "further restricted employees."

Not every single principle of honorable behavior needs to be explicitly spelled out. A Justice must behave in a way that does not give rise to doubt about his or her impartiality.

Flying a flag associated with an attempted coup and attack on the Capitol does comply with that standard.

Alito should be impeached.

If we did that, every judge nominated by democrats in the last 50 years would be removed from the bench.

Really? What Dem appointed judges have participated in, or had family members participate in, a coup?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Context is important here. The case being cited had nothing to do with the second amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Unacceptable. Only republicans get to blow off the constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has a right to free speech because, get this, Supreme Court justices are US citizens.

It’s his private property.

Thank you very much. In the omnibus corrupt Supreme Court thread I said this is what your side would try as an excuse.

Really? Defending free speech now is an excuse?

Anyways, here is link to the hatch act.

Please read it. Alito did nothing wrong.

https://osc.gov/Services/Pages/HatchAct-Federal.aspx

So you're suggesting that they needed to add a bullet to cover federal employees supporting an insurrection? I'm not sure they had that much foresight that this was needed when pulling this legislation together.

Both he and his wife are allowed free speech. They did this on their own property. His wife is allowed to be her own person - he does not own her and she is not bound to the SCOTUS ethics.

Believe it or not, woman can have their own opinions.

Hahahaha. This former general’s wife thinks this is hysterically naive. The fun thing about being married to guys like this is that at we don’t get all the ethics training they get but we can 100% make mistakes that end their careers.

Military wives (not being sexist here- I'm a female vet but being realistic, generals are overwhelmingly male) are completely different from spouses of senior government officials. Most government agencies have no-- none-- null training for spouses. The nature of the work is such that a spouse may never have any contact with the agency or any representatives of the agency aside from the spouse. Moreover, it's common that the non-governmental spouse is the one making (often much) more money. It's one thing to ask a SAHM Military spouse to get on board. It's a completely different thing to tell a spouse making 10x the salary of the government official that they can't express political opinions. Especially when there are no actual legal requirements for them to censor themselves.

My wife is a high level non-political official. We have to fill out an intrusive financial disclosure every year that lists my assets along with hers. Also I cannot contribute to most political campaigns because of her position.

I'm a spouse of a federal employee and all of our combined assets are looked over every year by the ethics department of the fed agency, and the stocks and even mutual funds we can own are evaluated every single year. And what we are prohibited from owning changes with dh's federal position. Same thing for his coworkers.

But apparently if you are on the Supreme Court or Congress, anything goes.

Seriously why should you be held to a higher standard or a law that is not applied to anyone else?

AREN'T you clueless!!!! Because we don't want people on the government making decisions that line their pockets instead of doing what is best for the country.

Having a political yard sign doesn't line their pockets. It's also allowed under ethics rules for "further restricted employees."

Given he has not recused is is bias plain and simple no word salad changes that fact.

Spare us the crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alito needs to resign.

If that's the standard, then quite a few politicians and judges will need to resign.

Yes 141 republican members of the house 34 republican senators signed their god dammed given names to a coup.

They are all traitors and criminals and should resign and be jailed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alito needs to resign.

If that's the standard, then quite a few politicians and judges will need to resign.

Yes 141 republican members of the house 34 republican senators signed their god dammed given names to a coup.

They are all traitors and criminals and should resign and be jailed

+1

But the GOP has collectively turned traitor against the country and unless the Democrats take power by wide margins, we’ll once again not be able to put down a traitor rebellion. We abandoned the formerly enslaved when we let Reconstruction end without the formerly enslaved being compensated at all and in letting the traitors back into the country without a sneeze; we cannot do this again.