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

[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.

[Anonymous]

Can someone please explain how the action in question constitutes Constitutional grounds for impeachment, or any requirement for recusal under applicable judicial rules? I've read the entire thread, but I just don't see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain how the action in question constitutes Constitutional grounds for impeachment, or any requirement for recusal under applicable judicial rules? I've read the entire thread, but I just don't see it.

He or a family member publicly expressed partisan sympathy for a coup attempt. The same coup is now coming under his purview on the court. He is not hearing the case from a disinterested, non-biased perspective.

Anyone appointed to a board or commission just in DC government, would be recusing on this fact pattern. Why shouldn't a Justice of the Supreme Court? Or should we just have no rules, norms or standards?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain how the action in question constitutes Constitutional grounds for impeachment, or any requirement for recusal under applicable judicial rules? I've read the entire thread, but I just don't see it.

Imagine Justice Jackson had a 'Black Lives Matter' sign in front of her house.

Then imagine a BLM protestor was shot and killed by a cop. The cop's case had an appeal to the Supreme Court. Should she hear the case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain how the action in question constitutes Constitutional grounds for impeachment, or any requirement for recusal under applicable judicial rules? I've read the entire thread, but I just don't see it.

He or a family member publicly expressed partisan sympathy for a coup attempt. The same coup is now coming under his purview on the court. He is not hearing the case from a disinterested, non-biased perspective.

Anyone appointed to a board or commission just in DC government, would be recusing on this fact pattern. Why shouldn't a Justice of the Supreme Court? Or should we just have no rules, norms or standards?

The fascists want no rules, norms or standards for their side. That’s what it all boils down to, and why they try so many nonsense tactics against Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain how the action in question constitutes Constitutional grounds for impeachment, or any requirement for recusal under applicable judicial rules? I've read the entire thread, but I just don't see it.

He or a family member publicly expressed partisan sympathy for a coup attempt. The same coup is now coming under his purview on the court. He is not hearing the case from a disinterested, non-biased perspective.

Anyone appointed to a board or commission just in DC government, would be recusing on this fact pattern. Why shouldn't a Justice of the Supreme Court? Or should we just have no rules, norms or standards?

The fascists want no rules, norms or standards for their side. That’s what it all boils down to, and why they try so many nonsense tactics against Democrats.

+1 Conservatism consists of "in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain how the action in question constitutes Constitutional grounds for impeachment, or any requirement for recusal under applicable judicial rules? I've read the entire thread, but I just don't see it.

Imagine Justice Jackson had a 'Black Lives Matter' sign in front of her house.

Then imagine a BLM protestor was shot and killed by a cop. The cop's case had an appeal to the Supreme Court. Should she hear the case?

A justice theoretically supporting BLM doesn’t have a patch on Alito supporting the coup.

Donald Trump, with the support of the GOP - and now one SC justice as well as another SC justice’s wife, attempted to overthrow the government. Their goal was to stop the certification of the election so the Democratic Congress and President could not be sworn in and so that Trump and the GOP could seize control, thus ending democracy, potentially forever.

There is no planet on which Alito, and Roberts for supporting this treasonous nonsense, come away looking like unbiased jurists. They look like barely contained extremists, which is probably why they get so feisty about us noticing their treachery against our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain how the action in question constitutes Constitutional grounds for impeachment, or any requirement for recusal under applicable judicial rules? I've read the entire thread, but I just don't see it.

It has been spelled out in detail in this thread as well as innumerable media outlets online. Frankly, I wonder if you could find your derriere with both hands tied behind your back.

[Anonymous]

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

Please don’t tell me you live in the DMV. Good Lord.

Hatch Act only applies to the Executive Branch. Judicial Branch has a separate Ethics Act, which is close to greater restricted Hatch Act. Code of Judicial conduct adds more restrictions and financial disclosures on top of the normally (very strict) judicial code.

You are right that Alito did nothing wrong, (legally), though. Code of Judicial Conduct applies to all federal judges— except SCOTUS. They can “self police” they say. How’s that going for them? What “his wife” did would get him neck deep in merde if he were still on the Cort of Appeals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Justice Alito, that neutral caller of balls and strikes, gives an exclusive response to Fox News.

Actually there is no excuse or valid explanation for Alito. SCOTUS just needs to ignore vulgar language and rise above partisanship.

Personally, he may want to reflect on why this sort of vitriol was directed at him and his spouse and whether he can strive to be the person his neighbor expects him to be.

The neighbors using expletive signs around kids? He just needs to keep his distance; they seem unhinged.

Remind me what school buses were running in NOVA in January 2021, pre-COVID vaccine?

If you live here and had a pulse, you would know the answer is zero. I can point you to several 200 page threads from that time period from APS, FCPS and ACPS that had devolved into teachers and parents insulting each other over this. As well as two separate attempts to recall FCPS school board members.

Of there hasn’t been a school bus in 8 months, how does the “but the school bus” defense work, exactly.

Also, isn’t he in Fort Hunt? Ahhh… that hotbed of liberal military families.

Dude doesn’t even lie well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Justice Alito, that neutral caller of balls and strikes, gives an exclusive response to Fox News.

Actually there is no excuse or valid explanation for Alito. SCOTUS just needs to ignore vulgar language and rise above partisanship.

Personally, he may want to reflect on why this sort of vitriol was directed at him and his spouse and whether he can strive to be the person his neighbor expects him to be.

The neighbors using expletive signs around kids? He just needs to keep his distance; they seem unhinged.

But he didn’t say that in one of his telling of the story, which suggests it was made up as explanation.

Turns out he and his wife are the partisan hotheads they’re accusing their neighbors of being. Not super neighborly behavior from the scummy Alitos, but what else can one expect from a liar like him.

And if it IS true, the proper response would have been a “kindness matters” or “love everyone” kind of sign. It makes zero sense to respond to F Trump with a mayday message.

Yes, to leap to an upside down flag for an alleged neighborhood conflict is a weird leap.

These are weird people.