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.

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.

No. What I'm trying to tell you is that 1) it didn't violate any ethics requirements or the Hatch Act. And 2) your experience as a general's wife shouldn't be universalized. Being a general's wife is much, much different from being the spouse of a federal official, and fed spouses aren't nearly as attentive to these kinds of things as a military spouse is.

That person was a DP. I’m the person you were talking to and it sounds like you’ve never known anyone in a high position at all. Feds have lots of rules and the professionals with integrity follow them and care very much about optics and being non- partisan when that applies. Why on earth you’re trying so hard to excuse a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE from acting like a non- partisan professional is peculiar. Not long ago, they were expected to be beyond reproach.

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.

It’s relevant because you had the nerve to believe it’s logical that non-working spouses can be told what to do but spouses with careers can’t. Or that somehow going to some balls and events makes someone knowable about ethics violations. You thought it was sexist to assume most generals are men but the sexism is really in all of your own assumptions.

I don’t have to tell you that moving every 9 months -3 years with no notice makes a career a difficult reality, do I? But that doesn’t mean the military has more control over them than someone with a career. The ethics are tied to the government employee’s job, not variable based on how much money the non-fed makes. I struggle to express how outrageous that comment was and how offensive it is.

Certainly no one should be held to a higher standard than a Supreme Court justice but he’s throwing it your face that he thinks the rules don’t apply to him. It’s unprofessional. Raise your standards.

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?

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?

You are making several leaps in logic.

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.

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.

No. What I'm trying to tell you is that 1) it didn't violate any ethics requirements or the Hatch Act. And 2) your experience as a general's wife shouldn't be universalized. Being a general's wife is much, much different from being the spouse of a federal official, and fed spouses aren't nearly as attentive to these kinds of things as a military spouse is.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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?

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.