Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the Pine Tree flag bad when BLM displayed it, or nah?

Ordinary private citizens aren’t held to judicial standards. There’s no requirement for construction workers or bus drivers or waitresses to be apolitical or to avoid the mere appearance of impropriety.

Isn't Alito's wife one of those private citizens?

Because she’s married to a Supreme Court justice, her house is also his house. Her income is also his income and must be reported. She’s not quite a private citizen, but not entirely bound by judicial standards. Fair or not, her activities can cast the appearance of impropriety on him.

You're nutz. She can do as she damn well pleases. She is a PRIVATE CITIZEN.

There is no nuance, regardless of how you would like to project your tyrannical wishes.

This is cut and dry. Got it? CUT AND DRY.

When she made a political statement at her residence, she was also making a political statement at a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE’S RESIDENCE. She did this at Justice Alito’s house. She had HIM living under that flag. The flags flown at HIS home reflect on HIM. She’s free to do whatever she wants, and OTHER PEOPLE ARE FREE TO CRITICIZE THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY ON JUSTICE ALITO’S PART.

DP. Just because you think it creates an appearance of impropriety on the part of Justice Alito, doesn't mean that he must recuse himself. This is why there are objective rules in place to avoid subjective judgments. First, you're assuming her actions can and should be imputed to him. Strike one. Second, you're assuming she made a political statement. Strike two. Three, you're assuming that her political statement was supporting an "insurrection" or other inappropriate activity. You're out.

Also, let us know if you're willing to apply your "rules" to Democratic politicians, appointees, and judges. Please tell us what those rules are and what the objective criteria are for following them.

It’s laughable to claim Mrs. Alito wasn’t making a political statement. She didn’t fly the flag upside down by accident and she wasn’t signaling that she needed to be rescued. She was sending a message in response to a conflict over a political yard sign because she felt she’d been treated very badly. It was an odd, ham fisted gesture. I’m not one of the posters calling on Justice Alito to recuse himself over the flag multiple issues. I do, however, think that it’s appropriate to report on this kind of incident, and to ask Justice Alito about it. I don’t want his head on a pike, but he should be asked to explain public displays at his home. Someone on Justice Alito’s staff should refresh Mrs. Alito’s instruction on maintaining judicial propriety.

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t SC judges supposed to stay neutral? How is this appropriate that a judge is encouraging resistance to a democratic election’s results?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wonder sometimes why we Americans feel the need to advertise our specific political views so publicly in the form of the types of flags discussed on this thread, bumper stickers, T-shirts, hats, etc. Why do some people insist on putting it all out there for everyone to see? As someone who grew up abroad, I find it very odd.

Cable news created a sports team concept to politics. It’s awful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the Pine Tree flag bad when BLM displayed it, or nah?

Ordinary private citizens aren’t held to judicial standards. There’s no requirement for construction workers or bus drivers or waitresses to be apolitical or to avoid the mere appearance of impropriety.

Isn't Alito's wife one of those private citizens?

Because she’s married to a Supreme Court justice, her house is also his house. Her income is also his income and must be reported. She’s not quite a private citizen, but not entirely bound by judicial standards. Fair or not, her activities can cast the appearance of impropriety on him.

You're nutz. She can do as she damn well pleases. She is a PRIVATE CITIZEN.

There is no nuance, regardless of how you would like to project your tyrannical wishes.

This is cut and dry. Got it? CUT AND DRY.

When she made a political statement at her residence, she was also making a political statement at a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE’S RESIDENCE. She did this at Justice Alito’s house. She had HIM living under that flag. The flags flown at HIS home reflect on HIM. She’s free to do whatever she wants, and OTHER PEOPLE ARE FREE TO CRITICIZE THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY ON JUSTICE ALITO’S PART.

DP. Just because you think it creates an appearance of impropriety on the part of Justice Alito, doesn't mean that he must recuse himself. This is why there are objective rules in place to avoid subjective judgments. First, you're assuming her actions can and should be imputed to him. Strike one. Second, you're assuming she made a political statement. Strike two. Three, you're assuming that her political statement was supporting an "insurrection" or other inappropriate activity. You're out.

Also, let us know if you're willing to apply your "rules" to Democratic politicians, appointees, and judges. Please tell us what those rules are and what the objective criteria are for following them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mrs Alito is clearly mentally jll.

If you consider extreme partisanship a mental illness, perhaps. But I would say Ginni Thomas is way worse. She's not just open about her political biases, she actively works to promote her beliefs (election denier, Jan. 6 supporter).

PS. I'm pretty sure Mrs Alito did not hoist up that flag at two houses all alone.

Anonymous wrote:Mrs Alito is clearly mentally jll.

Anonymous wrote:Mrs Alito is clearly mentally jll.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the Pine Tree flag bad when BLM displayed it, or nah?

Ordinary private citizens aren’t held to judicial standards. There’s no requirement for construction workers or bus drivers or waitresses to be apolitical or to avoid the mere appearance of impropriety.

Isn't Alito's wife one of those private citizens?

Because she’s married to a Supreme Court justice, her house is also his house. Her income is also his income and must be reported. She’s not quite a private citizen, but not entirely bound by judicial standards. Fair or not, her activities can cast the appearance of impropriety on him.

You're nutz. She can do as she damn well pleases. She is a PRIVATE CITIZEN.

There is no nuance, regardless of how you would like to project your tyrannical wishes.

This is cut and dry. Got it? CUT AND DRY.

When she made a political statement at her residence, she was also making a political statement at a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE’S RESIDENCE. She did this at Justice Alito’s house. She had HIM living under that flag. The flags flown at HIS home reflect on HIM. She’s free to do whatever she wants, and OTHER PEOPLE ARE FREE TO CRITICIZE THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY ON JUSTICE ALITO’S PART.

DP. Just because you think it creates an appearance of impropriety on the part of Justice Alito, doesn't mean that he must recuse himself. This is why there are objective rules in place to avoid subjective judgments. First, you're assuming her actions can and should be imputed to him. Strike one. Second, you're assuming she made a political statement. Strike two. Three, you're assuming that her political statement was supporting an "insurrection" or other inappropriate activity. You're out.

Also, let us know if you're willing to apply your "rules" to Democratic politicians, appointees, and judges. Please tell us what those rules are and what the objective criteria are for following them.

Anonymous wrote:I really wonder sometimes why we Americans feel the need to advertise our specific political views so publicly in the form of the types of flags discussed on this thread, bumper stickers, T-shirts, hats, etc. Why do some people insist on putting it all out there for everyone to see? As someone who grew up abroad, I find it very odd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the Pine Tree flag bad when BLM displayed it, or nah?

Ordinary private citizens aren’t held to judicial standards. There’s no requirement for construction workers or bus drivers or waitresses to be apolitical or to avoid the mere appearance of impropriety.

Isn't Alito's wife one of those private citizens?

Because she’s married to a Supreme Court justice, her house is also his house. Her income is also his income and must be reported. She’s not quite a private citizen, but not entirely bound by judicial standards. Fair or not, her activities can cast the appearance of impropriety on him.

You're nutz. She can do as she damn well pleases. She is a PRIVATE CITIZEN.

There is no nuance, regardless of how you would like to project your tyrannical wishes.

This is cut and dry. Got it? CUT AND DRY.

When she made a political statement at her residence, she was also making a political statement at a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE’S RESIDENCE. She did this at Justice Alito’s house. She had HIM living under that flag. The flags flown at HIS home reflect on HIM. She’s free to do whatever she wants, and OTHER PEOPLE ARE FREE TO CRITICIZE THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY ON JUSTICE ALITO’S PART.

DP. Just because you think it creates an appearance of impropriety on the part of Justice Alito, doesn't mean that he must recuse himself. This is why there are objective rules in place to avoid subjective judgments. First, you're assuming her actions can and should be imputed to him. Strike one. Second, you're assuming she made a political statement. Strike two. Three, you're assuming that her political statement was supporting an "insurrection" or other inappropriate activity. You're out.

Also, let us know if you're willing to apply your "rules" to Democratic politicians, appointees, and judges. Please tell us what those rules are and what the objective criteria are for following them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I commend Alito for taking the opportunity to teach the liberals who think history started when they were born a little about the history of this country.

The idea that he would fly a flag designed and used during the American Revolution helps our youth learn what they failed to learn in school.

In a letter dated October 20, 1775,[1][2] General Washington's secretary, Colonel Joseph Reed, suggested a "flag with a white ground and a tree in the middle, the motto AN APPEAL TO HEAVEN" be used for the ships Washington commissioned.[5] Two heavily armed American scows, or "floating batteries," launched on the Charles River in September 1775 had used the Pine Tree flag as an ensign; in his letter, Reed described the banner he proposed as "the flag of our floating batteries."[2][1] The six schooners commissioned by Congress beginning in October 1775 to intercept British ships entering Boston—the USS Hancock, Lee, Franklin, Harrison, Lynch, and Warren—used the Pine Tree flag.[2][1]
The following year, on April 29, 1776,[2][1] the Massachusetts Council established the flag of the state navy with a resolution stating: "...that the Colours be a white Flag, with a green Pine Tree, and the Inscription, 'An Appeal to Heaven'."[1][5][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tree_Flag

The far right has been doing a lot of misappropriating of patriotic symbols - this one as one example, the Gadsden "Don't Tread On Me" flag as another - that one is particularly ironic as it was based on Benjamin Franklin's woodcut of a snake cut into 13 pieces, with the caption, "Join, or Die" calling for the need for a strong federal union. The exact opposite of the "shrink federal government down to nothing" loose bond and states' rights and sovereignty that the far right wants. That, and it was also first flown by the newly incorporated US Marines, which again is the opposite of state guards and the local militias that the far right loves.

The far Left has done its share of co-opting historical symbols as well, including flags. Look into the origins of the rainbow flag, which didn't become an LGBTQ symbol until 1978.

And yet it's a symbol of love. Not hate. Wonderful.

Depends on who you ask. For some it has become a symbol of an overly-aggressive political agenda.