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

[Anonymous]

You gotta love how the same people who absolutely lost their shit about “disrespecting the flag” when some black guys kneeled during the anthem are now “it’s just free speech” when Alito flies the flag upside down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You gotta love how the same people who absolutely lost their shit about “disrespecting the flag” when some black guys kneeled during the anthem are now “it’s just free speech” when Alito flies the flag upside down.

This.

Alito is a partisan hack with zero integrity.

[Anonymous]

It seems to me billionaires are working hard to protect their hoarding of wealth and have corrupted at least two justices - Thomas and Alito.

[Anonymous]

Already corrupt before they were seated

[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.

It's good that you're acknowledging now that there is no actual violation of anything other than good taste. I agree that it's distasteful to fly a flag upside down. But senior government officials, politicians, etc often lack decorum and they are not impeached. I would like a return to a more genteel society with much more severe penalties for crime and social penalties for dishonorable and distasteful behavior. Like 1950s level of gentility. Can we agree on this standard?

1950’s level of gentility? You mean like when black citizens had the water hose turned on them for daring to protest segregation?

[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:

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.

It's good that you're acknowledging now that there is no actual violation of anything other than good taste. I agree that it's distasteful to fly a flag upside down. But senior government officials, politicians, etc often lack decorum and they are not impeached. I would like a return to a more genteel society with much more severe penalties for crime and social penalties for dishonorable and distasteful behavior. Like 1950s level of gentility. Can we agree on this standard?

1950’s level of gentility? You mean like when black citizens had the water hose turned on them for daring to protest segregation?

Those black people weren’t being genteel. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Already corrupt before they were seated

When someone like Alito lies with their whole chest, under oath, yes, they're corrupt.

[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:

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.

It's good that you're acknowledging now that there is no actual violation of anything other than good taste. I agree that it's distasteful to fly a flag upside down. But senior government officials, politicians, etc often lack decorum and they are not impeached. I would like a return to a more genteel society with much more severe penalties for crime and social penalties for dishonorable and distasteful behavior. Like 1950s level of gentility. Can we agree on this standard?

1950’s level of gentility? You mean like when black citizens had the water hose turned on them for daring to protest segregation?

No. Like when Alito displaying this flag would have truly shocked the conscious, because people were expected to behave with decorum, when fathers stayed around to raise their children, and when people would consider whether their actions were in keeping with good values. Nothing about what I've written excludes black people, in fact, I'm sure black people are sick of our culture too.

[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:

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.

It's good that you're acknowledging now that there is no actual violation of anything other than good taste. I agree that it's distasteful to fly a flag upside down. But senior government officials, politicians, etc often lack decorum and they are not impeached. I would like a return to a more genteel society with much more severe penalties for crime and social penalties for dishonorable and distasteful behavior. Like 1950s level of gentility. Can we agree on this standard?

1950’s level of gentility? You mean like when black citizens had the water hose turned on them for daring to protest segregation?

No. Like when Alito displaying this flag would have truly shocked the conscious, because people were expected to behave with decorum, when fathers stayed around to raise their children, and when people would consider whether their actions were in keeping with good values. Nothing about what I've written excludes black people, in fact, I'm sure black people are sick of our culture too.

I find a Supreme Court Justice flying a symbol of treachery to be plenty shocking. I am not sure why Republicans are in such a hurry to hail our fascist overlords, because it’s not going to end well for them, either.

[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.

Where are you posting from that you have this little knowledge about the volume of rules, ethics, and professional behavior that federal employees have to follow?

It's distasteful to fly a flag upside down, but would not be a Hatch Act violation.

Why are you so fixated on the Hatch Act? Red herring much?

[Anonymous]

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

It’s his private property.

Yes, we are talking about the terrible, anti-American display of vile speech that occurred on a Supreme Court justice's private property. Speech that goes against everything he vowed to uphold and defend.

[Anonymous]

The looniest and most outspoken government/military spouses I know are up to their eyeballs in laughably stupid conspiracy theories. Either they never discuss this with their spouse or they are equally radicalized. It’s a bad look either way.

[Anonymous]

Where are the calls for his resignation?

[Anonymous]

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.

Where are you posting from that you have this little knowledge about the volume of rules, ethics, and professional behavior that federal employees have to follow?

It's distasteful to fly a flag upside down, but would not be a Hatch Act violation.

Why are you so fixated on the Hatch Act? Red herring much?

The Hatch Act doesn't apply to federal judges. Just stop with it.

The flag is supposed to be flown upside down only in case of an emergency.

This incident occurred at the home of a SCOTUS justice. Distasteful doesn't even begin to describe what is wrong, unethical, and professionally negligent/malpractice here.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yes, we are talking about the terrible, anti-American display of vile speech that occurred on a Supreme Court justice's private property. Speech that goes against everything he vowed to uphold and defend.

+1